1538P - Nutritional status of lymphoma patients-does it matter?

Date 28 September 2014
Event ESMO 2014
Session Poster Display session
Topics Lymphomas
Supportive Care
Presenter Vladislava Djurasinovic
Citation Annals of Oncology (2014) 25 (suppl_4): iv517-iv541. 10.1093/annonc/mdu356
Authors V.T. Djurasinovic1, J. Jelicic2, J. Bila3, B. Andjelic3, D. Antic3, V. Vukovic3, M. Todorovic3, B. Mihaljevic1
  • 1Hematology, Clinical center Serbia, 11000 - Belgrade/YU
  • 2Hematology, Clinical center of Serbia, 11000 - Belgrade/YU
  • 3Hematology, Clinical center of Serbia, Belgrade/YU

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate nutritional status at the presentation of lymphoma as predictor for therapy outcome.

Methods

We have analised 115 pts, m- 59/ f- 56, with newly diagnosed lymphoproliferative disorders( Jan 2012-mar 2014.) with curable modality of therapy. Pts with paliative treatment were excluded. We have analised influence of their nutritional status on therapy outcome:complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), very good partial remission (VGPR), early death (ED), early relaps (ER) and stable dissease (SD) or progressive dissease (PD). Alse we have calculated risk according age, clinical stage and agressivnes of primary dissease. According to ECOG PS we divided pts in two groups:ECOG PS less than 2, and 2 and more. Nutritional status was screenined using NRS2002 (nutritional assement proposed by ESPEN) and MNA (“mini nutritional assesment”). We also had information about infiltration of gastrointestinal tract (GIT).

Results

We had 95 pts with agressive lymphoma and 20 pts with indolent lymphoma. Median age was 60,5 (23-85)years, ECOG PS 0-1 47pts vs. 68 pts with ECOG PS 2 and more. We has 38pts in CS less than III and 77 pts with CS III and more. Median weight loss was 8,3(0-33)%, median BMI was 24,3 (16,7-38,6)kg/m2. Median percentage of weight loss per month was 2,7 (0-10)% . We have divided pts in two groups with loss until 3% per month or over 3% per month. As outcome of therapy 91pts achieved CR, VGPR or PR as favorable outcome and 24 pts had ED, ER, SD or PD. According NRS2002 we had two groups less than 3 vs. 4 and more. For MNA 11 and more vs. less than11. Binary logistic model for outcome previously explaned was significant (Wald 33,7, p < 0,001), HR was 4,8 for ECOG PS over 2(p = 0,025), HR was 4,05 for MNA under 11 (p = 0,092),HR for indolent lymphoma 0,17 (p = 0,132), HR 2,3 for infiltration of GIT (p = 0,17), HR for CS over 2- 2,3, HR 1,59 for NRS over 3.

Conclusions

Besides ECOG PS nutritional assesment can be predictor for therapy outcome in lymphoma pts. MNA screening was better predictor than NRS2002. Implementation of nutritional assesment in initial staging for pts with limforpoliferative dissease can reveal patients that need nutritional suport along with treatment. Study has limitation for implementing comorbidity indexes in model and larger group can be more conclusive.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.