Background: Cachexia is prevalent in cancer patients. The conventional diagnostic criteria for cachexia are often based on Western evidence, lacking consensus for Asian populations. This study aims to compare Asian Working Group for Cachexia (AWGC) criteria with Fearon's criteria, assessing their differences in population characteristics and prognostic impact.
Methods: The clinical data of patients who underwent radical gastrectomy between 2013 and 2019 were prospectively collected. Cachexia diagnosis involves the utilization of either AWGC criteria and the previous international consensus proposed by Fearon et al. A scoring model is established based on the optional criteria according to the AWGC criteria. Univariate and multivariate logistic and Cox regression analysis were conducted to determine the independent effect factors for postoperative complications and overall survival.
Results: In a total of 1330 patients, 461 met AWGC cachexia criteria and 311 met Fearon's criteria. Excluding 262 overlapping cases, those diagnosed solely with AWGC-cachexia had higher age and lower BMI, albumin, hemoglobin, and handgrip strength compared to those by Fearon's criteria alone. AWGC-cachexia independently increased the risk of postoperative complications, whereas Fearon's criteria did not. Patients with AWGC-cachexia also exhibited shorter overall survival than Fearon's criteria. The AWGC-based cachexia grading system effectively stratifies the risks of postoperative complications and mortality.
Conclusions: The AWGC criteria is more effective in diagnosing cancer cachexia in the Asian population and provide better prognostic indicators.
Keywords: Cachexia; Complication; Diagnostic criteria; Gastric cancer; Survival.
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.