Europe PMC

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Abstract 


Objectives

Cancer cachexia has many effects on physical function and causes a decline in activities of daily living (ADL). Therefore, rehabilitation programs should be structured according to the degree of cancer cachexia. Currently, the evaluation of cancer cachexia is mainly based on body mass. However, there is no report on the use of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) to evaluate the degree of cancer cachexia and survival prognosis in palliative cancer patients for whom rehabilitation has been prescribed. This study used mGPS to examine the prevalence of cancer cachexia in palliative cancer patients undergoing rehabilitation and the impacts of cancer cachexia, ADL, and complications on survival.

Methods

The participants included 135 palliative cancer patients who were admitted to the hospital and underwent rehabilitation between 2020 and 2022. Cancer cachexia classification by mGPS was conducted, and logistic regression analysis was used to examine factors affecting the survival of palliative cancer patients undergoing rehabilitation.

Results

The patients were grouped as follows: 6 (4.4%) normal, 13 (9.6%) undernourished, 12 (9.0%) pre-cachexia, and 104 (77.0%) refractory cachexia. Logistic regression analysis showed that the mGPS and BI affected survival.

Conclusions

In a cohort of palliative cancer patients undergoing rehabilitation, 86% had cachexia. mGPS and BI were associated with survival outcomes. Combination of mGPS classification with ADL assessment may provide meaningful prognostic information in these patients.

Free full text 


Logo of prmLink to Publisher's site
Prog Rehabil Med. 2024; 9: 20240031.
Published online 2024 Oct 2. https://doi.org/10.2490/prm.20240031
PMCID: PMC11439973
PMID: 39359880

Relationship between Survival Days, Cancer Cachexia, and Activities of Daily Living in Palliative Cancer Patients Undergoing Rehabilitation

Yuki Oyama, RPT, a Yoshiteru Akezaki, RPT, PhD, b Takeshi Kakuta, RPT, PhD, a Mizuki Sugiura, RPT, a Yoshiko Fukumura, RPT, a Keiko Okuma, RPT, a Takeshi Maeda, RPT, a Shingo Kakehi, RPT, MS, c Takashi Saito, RPT, PhD, d Miori Goto, MD, e Hiroyoshi Ikeda, MD, e Taketo Mukaiyama, MD, e and Akitaka Yoshizawa, MD, PhD e

ABSTRACT

Objectives:

Cancer cachexia has many effects on physical function and causes a decline in activities of daily living (ADL). Therefore, rehabilitation programs should be structured according to the degree of cancer cachexia. Currently, the evaluation of cancer cachexia is mainly based on body mass. However, there is no report on the use of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) to evaluate the degree of cancer cachexia and survival prognosis in palliative cancer patients for whom rehabilitation has been prescribed. This study used mGPS to examine the prevalence of cancer cachexia in palliative cancer patients undergoing rehabilitation and the impacts of cancer cachexia, ADL, and complications on survival.

Methods:

The participants included 135 palliative cancer patients who were admitted to the hospital and underwent rehabilitation between 2020 and 2022. Cancer cachexia classification by mGPS was conducted, and logistic regression analysis was used to examine factors affecting the survival of palliative cancer patients undergoing rehabilitation.

Results:

The patients were grouped as follows: 6 (4.4%) normal, 13 (9.6%) undernourished, 12 (9.0%) pre-cachexia, and 104 (77.0%) refractory cachexia. Logistic regression analysis showed that the mGPS and BI affected survival.

Conclusions:

In a cohort of palliative cancer patients undergoing rehabilitation, 86% had cachexia. mGPS and BI were associated with survival outcomes. Combination of mGPS classification with ADL assessment may provide meaningful prognostic information in these patients.

Keywords: activities of daily living, cachexia, overall survival, palliative cancer, rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

Cancer cachexia is defined as “a multifactorial condition characterized by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support and leads to progressive functional impairment”.1) Patients with cancer cachexia have decreased physical function,2) are less likely to tolerate cancer treatment,3) and have decreased overall survival.4) Regarding the effects of rehabilitation on cancer patients with cachexia, exercise therapy is reported to lead to anti-inflammatory effects in skeletal muscles.5) Furthermore, exercise therapy improves the physical function and quality of life of cancer patients and reduces the burden on caregivers.6,7,8,9) When implementing rehabilitation for palliative cancer patients, the degree of cancer cachexia should be appropriately assessed, and exercise therapy should be considered.

The European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC) has published criteria for the assessment of cancer cachexia based on a report by Fearon et al.1) However, it has been pointed out that weight assessment alone may not be sufficient to assess cachexia and that the EPCRC criteria are vague and difficult to interpret. Previous research has shown that standard blood tests for the presence of multiple factors that characterize cachexia, such as high C-reactive protein (CRP) and low serum albumin (Alb) levels, in addition to body mass, should be evaluated.10) In 2023, the Asia Working Group for Cachexia proposed diagnostic criteria for cachexia in Asian populations. In addition to the assessment of weight and body mass index, CRP is one of the criteria.11)

The Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) evaluates cancer cachexia using blood biomarkers, including Alb and CRP levels.12) The modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) with adjusted CRP cutoff values also incorporates CRP and Alb. It has an independent prognostic value for patients with solid tumors and head and neck cancer13,14,15) and is a simple method of assessing cancer cachexia using blood tests. However, no study has used mGPS to evaluate the degree of cancer cachexia and survival prognosis in palliative cancer patients for whom rehabilitation was prescribed. In this study, we investigated the incidence of cachexia at the start of a rehabilitation intervention in palliative cancer patients using the mGPS. We also examined factors affecting survival prognosis in palliative cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

The study included 135 incurable cancer patients (best supportive care patients) who were admitted to our hospital’s general wards between February 2020 and November 2022. All included patients were prescribed physical therapy by a palliative care physician, and their survey data were available for extraction.

A palliative care physician used the following criteria to prescribe physical therapy: the hospitalized patient wants to undergo rehabilitation, the goal of therapy is to improve and maintain activities of daily living (ADL), and the goal is to relieve the hospitalized patient’s pain. All hospitalized patients who met any of these criteria were included as subjects of this study.

Ethical Considerations

All procedures were performed under an approved protocol and in accordance with the ethical standards of the Kanamecho Hospital Ethics Committee (Approval No. 23001) and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Because the design of our study was retrospective without intervention, the opt-out method was used instead of informed consent.

Clinical Parameters

The following data were recorded for all patients: sex, age, primary cancer site (breast cancer or other), cancer cachexia assessment, Barthel Index (BI), and comorbidities. Measurements and assessments were conducted at the start of rehabilitation.

Overall Survival

Based on previous research,16,17,18) patients were classified according to whether they survived more than 90 days (≥90 day survival group) or less than 90 days (<90 day survival group).

Cancer Cachexia Assessment

Cancer cachexia was evaluated using mGPS.19) In this assessment, levels of Alb (3.5 g/dL) and CRP (0.5 mg/dL) are used as cutoff values. Patients may be classified into four categories: normal (Alb   3.5 g/dL, CRP < 0.5 mg/dL); pre-cachexia (Alb  3.5 g/dL, CRP > 0.5 mg/dL); low nutrition (Alb < 3.5 g/dL, CRP < 0.5 mg/dL); and refractory cachexia (Alb < 3.5 g/dL, CRP > 0.5 mg/dL).20) The patients were classified into two groups: a normal/low-nutrition group and a pre-cachexia/refractory cachexia group.

Activities of Daily Living

Patient ADL status was evaluated using BI.21) This index is calculated based on the following ten items: feeding, grooming, bathing, toileting, dressing, mobility, transfer, stair climbing, bowel control, and bladder control. Higher overall BI reflects a greater level of functional independence. In this study, BI was classified into two groups (≥45 group and <45 group) based on the BI severity classification of previous studies.22,23)

Comorbidity

Comorbidity was assessed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).24) The CCI is calculated as the sum of 19 conditions that are weighted depending on the relative risk in 1-year mortality. Based on previous research,25,26,27) we classified participants into two groups (CCI  6 and CCI < 6).

Statistical Analysis

Univariate analysis (Fisher test or Mann–Whitney U test) and logistic regression analysis were performed to identify variables (i.e., sex, age, primary cancer site, cancer cachexia assessment, ADL, and comorbidities) as predictors of 3-month overall survival. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 22.0 (IBM, Tokyo, Japan). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Patient Characteristics

The clinical characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. One hundred and thirty-five consecutive patients (73 men, 62 women) were recruited. The average (± standard deviation) patient age at the time of the study was 74.3 ± 11.2 years.

Table 1.

 Clinical characteristics of participants
ItemNumber
mGPS
 Normal/low-nutrition group19
 Pre-cachexia/refractory cachexia group116
BI
 ≥45 group37
 <45 group98
CCI
 ≥6 group101
 <6 group34
Primary cancer site
 Breast13
 Other122

Cachexia in Palliative Cancer Patients Undergoing Rehabilitation

The prevalence of cancer cachexia among palliative cancer patients undergoing rehabilitation was 4.4% (n=6) in the normal group, 9.6% (n=13) in the low-nutrition group, 9.0% (n=12) in the pre-cachexia group, and 77% (n=104) in the refractory cachexia group. Overall, 116 (86.0%) of the 135 palliative cancer patients were identified as having cachexia.

Factors Affecting Overall Survival

The results of univariate analysis (Fisher and Mann–Whitney U tests) for 90-day survival are shown in Table 2. There were 63 patients in the ≥90-day survival group and 73 patients in the <90-day survival group. Significant differences were observed between the 90-day survival groups for mGPS and BI (P < 0.05).

Table 2.

 Factors predicting overall survival: univariate analysis
Variable≥90-day survival<90-day survivalP value
Sex (male/female)32/3141/310.494
Age (years)78 (49–95)75 (47–93)0.148
Primary cancer site (breast/other)5/588/640.574
mGPS (normal and low-nutrition/pre-cachexia and refractory cachexia)13/506/660.049
BI (≥45 group/<45 group)23/4014/580.034
CCI (≥6 group/<6 group)48/1553/190.843

Data given as number or median (range).

The variable assignments of multivariate logistic regression are shown in Table 3, and the results of the logistic regression analysis for factors predicting overall survival are shown in Table 4. mGPS (normal/low-nutrition group) was a positive factor for overall survival at 90 days. Higher ADL was a positive factor for 90 days of overall survival (P < 0.05).

Table 3.

 Variable assignments of multivariate logistic regression
FactorVariableAssignment
90-day survivalY≥90-day survival = 1; <90-day survival = 0
SexX1Male = 1; female = 0
AgeX2Continuous variables
Primary cancer siteX3Breast = 1; other = 0
mGPSX4Normal/low nutrition = 1; pre-cachexia/refractory cachexia = 0
BIX5BI  45 = 1; BI < 45 = 0
CCIX6CCI < 6 = 1; CCI  6 = 0

Table 4.

 Factors predicting overall survival: logistic regression analyses
VariableOdds ratio (95% CI)P value
Sex1.269 (0.595–2.708)0.538
Age1.027 (0.993–1.063)0.117
Primary cancer site0.730 (0.193–2.753)0.642
mGPS3.438 (1.118–10.572)0.031
BI2.783 (1.218–6.361)0.015
CCI1.122 (0.491–2.564)0.785

CI, confidence interval.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the prevalence of cachexia in cancer patients at the start of rehabilitation and the factors affecting survival prognosis in the palliative stage. The results showed that the proportion of patients with cachexia was high, and mGPS and ADL strongly influenced the prognosis.

In this study, 9.0% of patients had pre-cachexia, and 77.0% had refractory cachexia, which are higher levels than reported in previous studies. Silva et al.28) classified advanced cancer patients in palliative care according to mGPS, reporting 3.9% with pre-cachexia and 26.4% with refractory cachexia. In a study of patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer and receiving palliative chemotherapy, Bye et al.29) reported the prevalence of pre-cachexia and refractory cachexia as 25% and 10%, respectively. Palliative care patients with cancer cachexia have multiple symptoms. It is difficult to provide active interventions to maintain and improve ADL and dyspnea, relieve pain, and improve or maintain quality of life. Cancer cachexia in palliative cancer patients should be diagnosed at the start of rehabilitation using mGPS to allow rehabilitation programs to be designed according to the degree of cancer cachexia.

The results of this study indicate that mGPS significantly reflects prognosis in palliative cancer patients and is an important assessment in determining the physical condition of each patient. The main symptom of cancer cachexia is a decrease in skeletal muscle mass, which is influenced by decreased anti-inflammatory activity caused by cancer tumors and increased inflammation caused by decreased physical activity. In these patients, skeletal muscle anabolic stimulation and anabolic resistance are reduced, and skeletal muscle synthesis declines, leading to a vicious cycle of reduced physical function.30) The association between mGPS and overall survival has been reported by Silva et al.28) and Pantano et al.31) In addition, overall survival is associated with Karnofsky Performance Status in more advanced cancer patients who receive only palliative care. Furthermore, mGPS was significantly associated with lower skeletal muscle radiation intensity, failure in the Timed Up-and-Go test, and failure in the hand grip strength test in patients with advanced cancer.32)

The progressive decline in ADL in palliative cancer patients leads to decreased physical activity, which reduces the patient’s quality of life and affects their survival prognosis. In this study, a decline in ADL was strongly related to survival prognosis.

Palliative cancer patients experience progressive declines in ADL because of loss in skeletal muscle mass associated with worsening general condition and cancer cachexia. In lung cancer patients with cancer cachexia, items on the BI such as stair climbing, bathing, and voiding were observed as early disabling events and shorter asymptomatic survival has been reported.33) Poor performance status was also significantly associated with low skeletal muscle density, low skeletal muscle, and poor Timed Up-and-Go performance.32) A systematic review of the effects of exercise therapy on advanced cancer patients at high risk of developing cachexia reported benefits on physical function and fatigue. However, high program dropout rates and low compliance rates were reported as limitations of these studies.34,35) When implementing rehabilitation for palliative cancer patients, it may be necessary to adjust intervention frequency and exercise load as appropriate to maintain physical activity and ADL.

Our study found no association between comorbidities and survival prognosis. The CCI is a prognostic factor for liver, breast, gastric, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer patients.36,37,38,39,40) Several studies have reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus as complications in lung cancer patients and diabetes mellitus as a complication in breast cancer patients.41,42) Number of comorbidities and CCI score are also reported as significant predictors of survival outcomes in cancer patients.43,44,45) This study included multiple cancer types, and 81% of patients had a CCI of 3 or higher. The patients in our study were palliative cancer patients, many of whom had multiple comorbidities. This suggests that the CCI is not a significant predictor of survival.

Study Limitations

There were several limitations in this study. First, the study included patients from a single institution and did not examine patients from other institutions. Second, the measurement items in this study did not include symptoms such as dyspnea and fatigue, nor physical functions such as muscle strength and balance ability, so the effects of these symptoms were not examined. Third, the participants of this study were selected from patients for whom survey data could be extracted, and the study period was short. Further research is needed to examine these issues.

CONCLUSION

In this study of palliative cancer patients undergoing rehabilitation, 86% had cancer cachexia. The mGPS and BI were associated with survival prognosis. Combining mGPS classification and ADL assessment may provide some prognostic information when implementing rehabilitation for palliative cancer patients. The difference in prognosis may influence the design of the rehabilitation content, such as when to prioritize exercise therapy and movement training, when to reduce physical and psychological symptoms, and what patients want to do in their final days.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the assistance of the study participants.

Footnotes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Fearon K,Strasser F,Anker SD,Bosaeus I,Bruera E,Fainsinger RL,Jatoi A,Loprinzi C,MacDonald N,Mantovani G,Davis M,Muscaritoli M,Ottery F,Radbruch L,Ravasco P,Walsh D,Wilcock A,Kaasa S,Baracos VE.: Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:489–495. 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70218-7 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. LeBlanc TW,Nipp RD,Rushing CN,Samsa GP,Locke SC,Kamal AH,Cella DF,Abernethy AP.: Correlation between the international consensus definition of the Cancer Anorexia-Cachexia Syndrome (CACS) and patient-centered outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 2015;49:680–689. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.09.008 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Kimura M,Naito T,Kenmotsu H,Taira T,Wakuda K,Oyakawa T,Hisamatsu Y,Tokito T,Imai H,Akamatsu H,Ono A,Kaira K,Murakami H,Endo M,Mori K,Takahashi T,Yamamoto N.: Prognostic impact of cancer cachexia in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Support Care Cancer 2015;23:1699–1708. 10.1007/s00520-014-2534-3 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Pamoukdjian F,Laurent M,Martinez-Tapia C,Rolland Y,Paillaud E,Canoui-Poitrine F.: Frailty parameters, morbidity and mortality in older adults with cancer: a structural equation modelling approach based on the Fried phenotype. J Clin Med 2020;9:1826. 10.3390/jcm9061826 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Maddocks M,Murton AJ,Wilcock A.: Therapeutic exercise in cancer cachexia. Crit Rev Oncog 2012;17:285–292. 10.1615/CritRevOncog.v17.i3.60 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Chasen MR,Feldstain A,Gravelle D,MacDonald N,Pereira J.: An interprofessional palliative care oncology rehabilitation program: effects on function and predictors of program completion. Curr Oncol 2013;20:301–309. 10.3747/co.20.1607 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Sekine R,Ogata M,Uchiyama I,Miyakoshi K,Uruma M,Miyashita M,Morita T.: Changes in and associations among functional status and perceived quality of life of patients with metastatic/locally advanced cancer receiving rehabilitation for general disability. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2015;32:695–702. 10.1177/1049909114537871 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8.Salakari MRJ,Surakka T,Nurminen R,Pylkkanen L.: Effects of rehabilitation among patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review. Acta Oncol 2015;54:618–628. 10.3109/0284186X.2014.996661 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Chowdhury RA,Brennan FP,Gardiner MD.: Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care—exploring the synergies. J Pain Symptom Manage 2020;60:1239–1252. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.07.030 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Vanhoutte G,van de Wiel M,Wouters K,Sels M,Bartolomeeussen L,De Keersmaecker S,Verschueren C,De Vroey V,De Wilde A,Smits E,Cheung KJ,De Clerck L,Aerts P,Baert D,Vandoninck C,Kindt S,Schelfhaut S,Vankerkhoven M,Troch A,Ceulemans L,Vandenbergh H,Leys S,Rondou T,Dewitte E,Maes K,Pauwels P,De Winter B,Van Gaal L,Ysebaert D,Peeters M.: Cachexia in cancer: what is in the definition? BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2016;3:e000097. 10.1136/bmjgast-2016-000097 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11.Arai H,Maeda K,Wakabayashi H,Naito T,Konishi M,Assantachai P,Auyeung WT,Chalermsri C,Chen W,Chew J,Chou MY,Hsu CC,Hum A,Hwang IG,Kaido T,Kang L,Kamaruzzaman SB,Kim M,Lee JSW,Lee WJ,Liang CK,Lim WS,Lim JY,Lim YP,Lo RCK,Ong T,Pan WH,Peng LN,Pramyothin P,Razalli NH,Saitoh M,Shahar S,Shi HP,Tung HH,Uezono Y,Haehling SV,Chang WW,Woo J,Chen LK.: Diagnosis and outcomes of cachexia in Asia: working consensus report from the Asian Working Group for Cachexia. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2023;14:1949–1958. 10.1002/jcsm.13323 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. McMillan DC,Canna K,McArdle CS.: Systemic inflammatory response predicts survival following curative resection of colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2003;90:215–219. 10.1002/bjs.4038 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Petrelli F,Barni S,Coinu A,Bertocchi P,Borgonovo K,Cabiddu M,Ghilardi M,Zaniboni A.: The Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score and survival in colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of the literature. Rev Recent Clin Trials 2015;10:135–141. 10.2174/1574887110666150317121413 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Tanaka T,Yoshida T,Masuda K,Takeyasu Y,Shinno Y,Matsumoto Y,Okuma Y,Goto Y,Horinouchi H,Yamamoto N,Ohe Y.: Prognostic role of modified Glasgow Prognostic Score in elderly non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with anti-PD-1 antibodies. Respir Investig 2023;61:74–81. 10.1016/j.resinv.2022.10.003 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Nakayama M,Tabuchi K,Hara A.: Clinical utility of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2015;37:1745–1749. 10.1002/hed.23823 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. van Keulen AM,Buettner S,Erdmann JI,Pratschke J,Ratti F,Jarnagin WR,Schnitzbauer AA,Lang H,Ruzzenente A,Nadalin S,Cescon M,Topal B,Olthof PB,Groot Koerkamp B., Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma Collaboration Group: Multivariable prediction model for both 90-day mortality and long-term survival for individual patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: does the predicted survival justify the surgical risk? Br J Surg 2023;110:599–605. 10.1093/bjs/znad057 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Brunswicker A,Taylor M,Grant SW,Abah U,Smith M,Shackcloth M,Granato F,Shah R,Rammohan K,Argus L,Michael S,Mason S,Bhullar D,Obale E,Fritsch NC., North West Thoracic Surgery Collaborative (NWTSC): Pneumonectomy for primary lung cancer: contemporary outcomes, risk factors and model validation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2022;34:1054–1061. 10.1093/icvts/ivab340 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Penel N,Negrier S,Ray-Coquard I,Ferte C,Devos P,Hollebecque A,Sawyer MB,Adenis A,Seve P.: Development and validation of a bedside score to predict early death in cancer of unknown primary patients. PLoS One 2009;4:e6483. 10.1371/journal.pone.0006483 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Koike Y,Miki C,Okugawa Y,Yokoe T,Toiyama Y,Tanaka K,Inoue Y,Kusunoki M.: Preoperative C‐reactive protein as a prognostic and therapeutic marker for colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2008;98:540–544. 10.1002/jso.21154 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Toiyama Y,Miki C,Inoue Y,Tanaka K,Mohri Y,Kusunoki M.: Evaluation of an inflammation-based prognostic score for the identification of patients requiring postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colorectal cancer. Exp Ther Med 2011;2:95–101. 10.3892/etm.2010.175 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Mahoney FI,Barthel DW.: Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965;14:61–65. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
22. Qiao R,Jia S,Zhao W,Xia X,Su Q,Hou L,Li D,Hu F,Dong B.: Prevalence and correlates of disability among urban–rural older adults in Southwest China: a large, population-based study. BMC Geriatr 2022;22:517. 10.1186/s12877-022-03193-2 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Corrao S,Nobili A,Natoli G,Mannucci PM,Perticone F,Pietrangelo A,Argano C., REPOSI Investigators: Hyperglycemia at admission, comorbidities, and in-hospital mortality in elderly patients hospitalized in internal medicine wards: data from the RePoSI Registry. Acta Diabetol 2021;58:1225–1236. 10.1007/s00592-021-01716-8 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Charlson ME,Pompei P,Ales KL,MacKenzie CR.: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–383. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Ahola R,Siiki A,Rinta-Kiikka I,Laitinen I,Antila A,Jämsen E,Laukkarinen J.: Preoperative measures predicting outcome after pancreatic resection in aged patients. Scand J Surg 2022;111: 14574969221083136. 10.1177/14574969221083136 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Ceresoli M,Carissimi F,Nigro A,Fransvea P,Lepre L,Braga M,Costa G., List of Elderly Risk Assessment and Surgical Outcome (ERASO) Collaborative Study Group endorsed by SICUT, ACOI, SICG, SICE, and Italian Chapter of WSES: Emergency hernia repair in the elderly: multivariate analysis of morbidity and mortality from an Italian registry. Hernia 2022;26:165–175. 10.1007/s10029-020-02269-5 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Suzuki H,Hanai N,Nishikawa D,Fukuda Y,Koide Y,Kodaira T,Tachibana H,Tomita N,Makita C,Hasegawa Y.: The Charlson Comorbidity Index is a prognostic factor in sinonasal tract squamous cell carcinoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2016;46:646–651. 10.1093/jjco/hyw049 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28.Silva GAD,Wiegert EVM,Calixto-Lima L,Oliveira LC.: Clinical utility of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score to classify cachexia in patients with advanced cancer in palliative care. Clin Nutr 2020;39:1587–1592. 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.07.002 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Bye A,Wesseltoft-Rao N,Iversen PO,Skjegstad G,Holven KB,Ulven S,Hjermstad MJ.: Alterations in inflammatory biomarkers and energy intake in cancer cachexia: a prospective study in patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer. Med Oncol 2016;33:54. 10.1007/s12032-016-0768-2 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30.Naito T: Emerging treatment options for cancer-associated cachexia: a literature review. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2019;15:1253–1266. 10.2147/TCRM.S196802 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31.Pantano Nde P,Paiva BS,Hui D,Paiva CE.: Validation of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score in advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage 2016;51:270–277. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.09.010 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32.Dolan RD,Daly LE,Simmons CP,Ryan AM,Sim WM,Fallon M,Power DG,Wilcock A,Maddocks M,Bennett MI,Usborne C,Laird BJ,McMillan DC.: The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and body composition and physical function in patients with advanced cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:1187. 10.3390/cancers12051187 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Naito T,Okayama T,Aoyama T,Ohashi T,Masuda Y,Kimura M,Shiozaki H,Murakami H,Kenmotsu H,Taira T,Ono A,Wakuda K,Imai H,Oyakawa T,Ishii T,Omori S,Nakashima K,Endo M,Omae K,Mori K,Yamamoto N,Tanuma A,Takahashi T.: Unfavorable impact of cancer cachexia on activity of daily living and need for inpatient care in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Japan: a prospective longitudinal observational study. BMC Cancer 2017;17:800. 10.1186/s12885-017-3795-2 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34.Heywood R,McCarthy AL,Skinner TL.: Efficacy of exercise interventions in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018;99:2595–2620. 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.04.008 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Dittus KL,Gramling RE,Ades PA.: Exercise interventions for individuals with advanced cancer: a systematic review. Prev Med 2017;104:124–132. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.015 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36.Ouellette JR,Small DG,Termuhlen PM.: Evaluation of Charlson-Age Comorbidity Index as predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8:1061–1067. 10.1016/j.gassur.2004.09.045 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37.Huguet F,Mukherjee S,Javle M.: Locally advanced pancreatic cancer: the role of definitive chemoradiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2014;26:560–568. 10.1016/j.clon.2014.06.002 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38.Bauschke A,Altendorf-Hofmann A,Mothes H,Rauchfuß F,Settmacher U.: Partial liver resection results in a significantly better long-term survival than locally ablative procedures even in elderly patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2016;142:1099–1108. 10.1007/s00432-016-2115-6 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39.Morgan JL,Richards P,Zaman O,Ward S,Collins K,Robinson T,Cheung KL,Audisio RA,Reed MW,Wyld L., Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer Trial Management Team: The decision-making process for senior cancer patients: treatment allocation of older women with operable breast cancer in the UK. Cancer Biol Med 2015;12:308–315. 10.7497/j.issn.2095-3941.2015.0080 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40.Asano T,Yamada S,Fujii T,Yabusaki N,Nakayama G,Sugimoto H,Koike M,Fujiwara M,Kodera Y.: The Charlson age comorbidity index predicts prognosis in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Int J Surg 2017;39:169–175. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.01.115 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41.Islam KM,Jiang X,Anggondowati T,Lin G,Ganti AK.: Comorbidity and survival in lung cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:1079–1085. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0036 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42.Patterson RE,Flatt SW,Saquib N,Rock CL,Caan BJ,Parker BA,Laughlin GA,Erickson K,Thomson CA,Bardwell WA,Hajek RA,Pierce JP.: Medical comorbidities predict mortality in women with a history of early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;122:859–865. 10.1007/s10549-010-0732-3 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43.Tammemagi CM,Neslund-Dudas C,Simoff M,Kvale P.: Impact of comorbidity on lung cancer survival. Int J Cancer 2003;103:792–802. 10.1002/ijc.10882 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44.Niksic M,Redondo-Sanchez D,Chang YL,Barranco MR,Hernandez JE,Gragera RM,Poch EO,Barrera JB,Sanchez MJ,Fernandez MAL.: The role of multimorbidity in short-term mortality of lung cancer patients in Spain: a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer 2021;21:1048. 10.1186/s12885-021-08801-9 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45.Morishima T,Matsumoto Y,Koeda N,Shimada H,Maruhama T,Matsuki D,Nakata K,Ito Y,Tabuchi T,Miyashiro I.: Impact of comorbidities on survival in gastric, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. J Epidemiol 2019;29:110–115. 10.2188/jea.JE20170241 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine are provided here courtesy of Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine

Citations & impact 


This article has not been cited yet.

Impact metrics

Alternative metrics

Altmetric item for https://www.altmetric.com/details/168849322
Altmetric
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/168849322