Cross-sectional study assesses nutritional status and its risk factors among adult GI cancer patients, highlighting the need for early interventions.
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is increasingly recognized as a key prognostic factor in cancer patients. Although existing studies have reported malnutrition across various cancer types in Ethiopia, the nutritional status of the patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers remains largely unexamined. AIM: Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess nutritional status and identify its associated factors among adult patients with GI cancers at a tertiary hospital in Southwest Ethiopia. METHODS: We conducted a facility-based cross-sectional study on patients diagnosed with GI cancer at Jimma University Medical Center. Nutritional status was determined using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) tool. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between nutritional status and potential risk factors. A p-value less than 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval was used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Our study revealed that 74.4% (95% CI: 67.3-80.7) of adult GI cancer patients were at risk of malnutrition. The multivariable analysis indicated that being female [AOR = 3.76; 95% CI: (1.63-8.67)], having stage IV cancer [AOR = 4.10; 95% CI: (1.16-14.32)], having an illness duration of 25 months or more [AOR = 3.68; 95% CI: (1.42-9.57)], having a poor performance status [AOR = 2.72; 95% CI: (1.01-7.34)], and having comorbidities [AOR = 3.16; 95% CI: (1.33-7.50)] were significantly associated with an increased risk of malnutrition. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of malnutrition was high among adult GI cancer patients. The findings emphasize the crucial necessity for healthcare professionals to undertake routine nutritional screening and early nutritional interventions to enhance patient outcomes. Future research using a multicenter longitudinal study is recommended to build on these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takele et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: