Anorexia is a common symptom in cancer and is usually assessed by multiple questions and multidimensional questionnaires. A simplified questionnaire would be less burdensome to patients and abbreviate the process.
Objectives
We compared the reliability at one point in time, sensitivity to change over time, and prognostic accuracy of a two-item questionnaire with the Functional Assessment of Anorexia and Cachexia Therapy shortened 12-question version (A/CS-12).
Methods
Individuals with cancer, who were cognitively intact and verbally agreed to participate, completed a two-item questionnaire and A/CS-12 in random order and again seven days later. We compared the direction of response to the summated two-item questionnaire to the validated A/CS-12 score at a single point in time, then intra-patient changes over a seven-day period of time. Scores of both questionnaires were divided into poor, moderate and good appetite and compared to survival using Kaplan-Meyer curves. Bootstrapping was used to construct confidence intervals for estimated probability agreement. Survival analysis also used hazard ratios from a Cox Proportional Hazards model.
Results
One hundred seventeen individuals from a single institution participated, who were either admitted to an inpatient palliative unit or seen in an outpatient/palliative medicine unit. Median age was 58.8 (range 10.7–87.1 years). Agreement at one point in time was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 – 0.66). Agreement over time was 0.53 (CI 0.41 – 0.64). The A/CS-12 predicted survival based on scores on Days 1 and 7 (P<0.001), (P=0.003) (HR 0.97 day 1, HR 0.95 day 7), whereas the simplified questionnaire failed to predict survival.
Conclusions
A simplified questionnaire has moderate correlation with the A/CS-12 at one point in time but loses sensitivity over time, and lacks the ability to predict survival. A change in the questionnaire may improve reliability. Changing question 2 of the simplified questionnaire to a neutral form (better, same or worse appetite) may improve sensitivity and prognostic capability.
ABSTRACT