Patients after gastrectomy for gastric cancer are at risk of malnutrition, and poor nutritional status negatively affects patients’ clinical outcomes. Knowledge of the factors influencing patients’ nutritional status can inform interventions for improving patients’ nutrition. A cross-sectional study was conducted to describe nutritional status and related factors in gastric cancer patients after gastrectomy. A convenience sample of gastric cancer patients with gastrectomy was recruited from general surgery or oncology clinics of a medical center in northern Taiwan. Data were collected with self-reported questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy—Gastric Module version 4, the Concerns in Meal Preparation scale, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and the Mini Nutrition Assessment. One hundred and one gastric cancer patients participated in the study. There were 81 cases of subtotal gastrectomy and 20 cases of total gastrectomy. Most patients (52.5%) were malnourished or at risk. Linear regression showed that symptom severity (β = −0.43), employment status (β = 0.19), and difficulty in diet preparation (β = −0.21) were significant predictors of nutritional status. Together, these three variables explained 35.8% of the variance in patient nutritional status (F = 20.3, p < 0.001). More than 50% of our participants were malnourished or at risk for malnutrition, indicating a need for continued monitoring and support after discharge from hospitals. Special attention should be given to patients with severe symptoms, unemployment, and difficulties in diet preparation.

The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in Taiwan has generated a need for a disease-specific quality-of-life measuring instrument. We aimed to validate the Taiwan Chinese version of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29. A total of 108 patients were interviewed. Convergent and discriminant validity, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, test-retest reliability, and known-groups comparisons were used to examine the reliability and validity. We found good internal consistency reliability for multi-item scales of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29, except for the cognitive function and pain scale of the QLQ-C30. Patients in the active treatment group reported compromised functional scale scores (global health status/quality of life, QLQ-C30) and worse symptoms (blood and mucus in stool, QLQ-CR29) than those in the follow-up group. Similar results were found in comparisons based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status and Bristol Stool Scale: higher physical function/sexual interest, less fatigue/urine frequency symptoms for patients with the lowest ECOG Performance Status (Grade 0), and borderline worse stool frequency scores from Types 5 and 6 patients on the Bristol Stool Scale. The study validated the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29. The clinical applicability warrants further studies with greater number of participants.