100 Cases Of Colorectal Cancer Patients Nutrition Status Quo Investigation And Study

Objective: In this study, PG-SGA were investigated the nutrient status and nutriention support of patients with colorectal cancer in Xingtai People’s Hospital, understanding the colorectal patients’ nutrition status and nutrition support in Xingtai People’s Hospital.Methods:In this study, By convenience sampling method,100 colorectal cancer patients who meet the inclusion criteria from Xingtai People’s Hospital were recruited from September 2013 to December 2014. PG-SGA was used as a nutritional status assessment tool, the concrete content including: colorectal cancer patients’ body weight, feeding activity and physical function, disease and nutrition demand, metabolic needs, physical examination and other aspects of nutritional status assessment. Patients’ nutritional status was evaluated by PG-SGA scale and according to the result was graded into good nutrition(PG-SGA≤ 1 points or PG-SGA quantitative evaluation of Grade A), Mild / moderate malnutrition(PG-SGA score between 2~8 or PG-SGA qualitative assessment level B) and Severe malnutrition(PG-SGA ≥9 or PG-SGA quantitative score of qualitative assessment level C). Nutritional risk screening of NRS 2002 standard:the total score of NRS 2002 is more than 3 points were judged to be at nutritional risk, NRS 2002 < 3 was no nutritional risk. Multiple regression analysis were used to analysis the correlation of PG-SGA score and anthropometric and biochemical indicators. Correlation analysis of PG-SGA score and NRS score of 2002 using bivariate correlation analysis of Spearmen correlation coefficient.Results:1 Selected a total of 100 cases of patients with colorectal cancer, 57 males, 43 females. PG-SGA was used toevaluate of selected node nutritional status in colorectal cancer patients, including 20 cases of good nutrition, 63 cases of mild / moderate malnutrition, 17 cases of severe malnutrition; dividing the patients into the elder group(65 years old) and younger group(< 65 years), there was significant difference between the two groups of patients nutrition status(χ2=22.83,P<0.001).2 There were significant differences between the three groups of patients with age in good nutrition group, mild / moderate malnutrition group and severe malnutrition group, the average age of good nutrition group is obviously lower than the other two groups. Drinking had a significant impact on the nutritional status of the patients, the good nutrition group were drinkers accounted for 10%, mild / moderate malnutrition group accounted for 11.11%, and severe malnutrition patients accounted for 35.3%, the latter is obviously higher than the other two groups(P=0.036). The good nutrition group with metastasis lesions occurred in 30% patients, a metastasis lesions occurred in 42.9% patients with mild / moderate malnutrition group, and severe malnutrition group with metastasis lesions occurred in 76.5%, the latter is significantly higher than the other two groups(P=0.013). Patients had a total of 64 cases of chemotherapy, Good nutrition, mild / moderate malnutrition, severe malnutrition group chemotherapy rates were 40%, 66.7% and 82.4%, there were significant differences(χ2=7.68, P=0.021) in three groups of patients with chemotherapy.3 Three groups of patients with Karnofsky score had significantly differences(P=0.001),good nutrition group was Karnofsky scoring average of 89.5 points, mild / moderate malnutrition group was 83.5, severe malnutrition group was 67.1. The three groups of patients with upper arm circumference compared to the midpoint had significantly differences(P=0.001), the good nutrition group was obviously higher than mild / moderate malnutrition group mean and severe malnutrition group. Three groups of patients with triceps skinfold thickness had significantly differences(P=0.013), the good nutrition group was obviously higher than mild / moderate malnutrition group mean and severe malnutrition group. The maximum circumferential in three groups of patients with leg diameter had significantly differences(P=0.013), the good nutrition group was obviously higher than mild / moderate malnutrition group mean and severe malnutrition group.4 The good nutrition group patients had not nutritional support; mild / moderate malnutrition group patients without nutritional support in 57 cases, 6 cases of nutritional support, 2 cases of enteral nutrition supporters, 4 cases of parenteral nutrition supporters; severe malnutrition patients without nutritional support in 11 cases, 6 cases of nutritional support, 1 cases of enteral nutrition supporters, 5 cases of parenteral nutrition supporters, there were significant differences in nutritional support in the patients in three groups(P=0.013).5 PG-SGA scores were negatively correlated with albumin, hemoglobin, BMI(correlation coefficient were-0.25,-0.03,-0.26, P < 0.05), with the total protein, white blood cell count showed no significant correlation(P > 0.05).6 For bivariate correlation analysis of 100 cases of colorectal cancer NRS 2002 score and PG-SGA score, the results show that Rs=0.629, there was significant correlation suggested that NRS 2002 score and PG-SGA score, and the positive rate of malnutrition was significantly higher than that of NRS 2002 scoring method, while in PG-SGA detected in malnourished individuals in 38 cases for the good nutrition, including 35 cases of mild / moderate malnutrition, 3 cases of severe malnutrition.Conclusion:1 PG-SGA was used as the nutritional status of patients with colorectal cancer assessment tool was better than that of NRS 2002.2 Age, drinking, lesions occurred metastasis and chemotherapy treatment of colorectal cancer patients could affect the nutritional status of the patients. In addition, patients with malnutrition would affect the time of hospitalization, the midpoint of upper arm circumference, triceps skinfold thickness, leg circumference, hemoglobin, albumin and patients quality of life.3 Colorectal cancer patients had a higher incidence of malnutrition, and patients with malnutrition and nutrition support rate is relatively low. We should be timely to evaluate the nutritional status of patients with colorectal cancer, then made an reasonable nutrition support plan, improved the nutritional status and prognosis of patients.