BACKGROUND 77.1% were female and 58.6% had metastatic disease. GLIM criteria classified 46/140 (32.9%) patients as malnourished. MUST ≥1 demonstrated sensitivity 71.7% and specificity 88.3% (PPV 75.0%, NPV 86.5%), yielding the highest Youden's Index (0.600). MUST ≥2 showed very high specificity (98.9%) but poor sensitivity (21.7%). PG-SGA SF ≥2 achieved the highest sensitivity (89.1%) but low specificity (48.9%), while PG-SGA SF ≥4 provided the most balanced performance (sensitivity 76.1%, specificity 68.1%; Youden's Index 0.442). Overall classification distributions differed significantly between MUST and PG-SGA SF (Fisher's Exact Test, p=0.0001) CONCLUSIONS: In this outpatient oncology cohort, MUST ≥1 demonstrated the best overall discrimination for detecting GLIM-defined malnutrition, while PG-SGA SF identified a greater proportion of patients at potential nutritional risk at lower cut-offs. PG-SGA SF thresholds around ≥4-6 may represent a pragmatic balance between sensitivity and specificity for routine outpatient screening. Limited agreement between tools indicates that they capture different dimensions of nutritional compromise, with the PG-SGA SF incorporating patient-reported symptoms and functional status that may identify risk not detected by weight-based screening alone. These aspects should be considered when selecting malnutrition screening tools and cut-off thresholds within oncology outpatient services.
Corrigan et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: