Development and application of the Cancer Cachexia Staging Index for the diagnosis and staging of cancer cachexia.

Objective: The current tools for evaluating cancer cachexia are either too simple to reflect the far-reaching effects of cachexia or too complicated to be used in daily practice. This study aimed to develop a cancer cachexia staging index (CCSI) that is both practical and comprehensive.

Methods: Patients with gastrointestinal cancers were prospectively included in the study. Clinical data including weight change, body composition, systematic inflammation, nutrition, and function status were entered into regression models to determine the best variable combination as well as their respective cutoff values and score distribution in the CCSI. The CCSI's ability to predict outcomes and evaluate the consequences of cachexia for patients were then assessed.

Results: Clinical information and test results from 10 568 patients were used to develop a CCSI composed of subjective and objective measures. Subjective measures included body mass index-adjusted weight loss grade, rate of weight loss, inflammation (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein level), and prealbumin level. Objective measures included appetite status and physical status. Patients were diagnosed and stratified by the total CCSI score into 3 subgroups: no cachexia, mild or moderate cachexia, and severe cachexia. The CCSI grades showed good survival discrimination and were independently predictive of survival in multivariate analysis. Compared with the traditional Fearon criteria for diagnosing cancer cachexia, the CCSI was more accurate in predicting postoperative complications (net reclassification index [NRI], 2.8%; 95% CI, 0.0104-0.0456%), death (NRI, 10.68%; 95% CI, 0.0429-0.1708%), recurrence (NRI, 3.71%; 95% CI, 0.0082-0.0685%), and overall survival (NRI, 8.5%; 95% CI, 0.0219-0.1533%). The CCSI also had better discriminative ability than Fearon criteria in discriminating nutritional status, body composition, and systematic inflammation in patients with or without cachexia. A more detailed evaluation of a randomly selected subgroup (n = 1566) showed that CCSI grades had good discrimination of appetite and food intake status, physical function and muscle strength, symptom burden, and quality of life.

Conclusions: The CCSI is a comprehensive and practical evaluation tool for cancer cachexia. It can predict postoperative outcomes and survival. The CCSI stages showed good discrimination when evaluating patients with cancer in terms of nutritional status, physical function, systematic inflammation, body composition, symptom burden, and quality of life.