Introduction: Malnutrition is a critical issue among cancer patients, leading to adverse clinical outcomes, including increased treatment toxicity, reduced physical function, and decreased survival. Nutritional screening is essential to identify patients at risk and provide timely interventions. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of various nutritional screening tools in identifying the risk of malnutrition and obesity in Mexican cancer outpatients. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 396 adult cancer outpatients at a public hospital in Mexico. Nutritional risk was evaluated using NRS-2002, MUST, MST, NUTRISCORE, and PG-SGA, while malnutrition was assessed using GLIM criteria and PG-SGA. Anthropometric and demographic data were collected. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficients were calculated to determine the performance of the screening tools. Results: Nutritional risk was identified in 22.7–26.5% of patients, with the highest agreement observed between MUST and PG-SGA (k = 0.64). Malnutrition prevalence was higher using GLIM criteria (37.4%) compared to PG-SGA (25.8%, p < 0.001). Overweight and obesity affected 37.1% and 23.5% of patients, respectively. Low BMI and reduced HGS were strongly associated with nutritional risk and malnutrition (p < 0.001). Conclusions: MUST and PG-SGA are reliable tools for nutritional screening in cancer outpatients, while GLIM criteria detect a higher prevalence of malnutrition than PG-SGA. The high rates of overweight and obesity highlight the complex nutritional challenges in this population, emphasizing the need for tailored nutritional assessments and interventions.

Background/Objectives: Malnutrition is a common issue among cancer patients, leading to adverse outcomes and reduced survival rates; therefore, nutritional screening and assessment are essential. Our study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the GLIM criteria to assess malnutrition and to compare the performance of various nutritional screening tests in evaluating nutritional risk. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on outpatient oncologic patients. Malnutrition was assessed using PG-SGA and GLIM criteria. Nutritional screening was performed using NRS-2002, MUST, MST, and NUTRISCORE. Anthropometric measurements, handgrip strength, cancer medical records and descriptive data were collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 396 patients were involved. Malnutrition was diagnosed in 37.4% according to GLIM criteria and in 25.8% according to PG-SGA (p<0.001). The agreement between GLIM criteria and PG-SGA was substantial (ƙ= 0.63). The diagnostic performance of PG-SGA showed a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 96.3%, whereas the GLIM criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 81.3% and a specificity of 91.2%. Both tools had a significant association with low dynamometry and low BMI (p<0.001). Nutritional risk was identified in 22.7% of the patients using NRS-2002, 25.8% with MUST, 26.5% with MST, and 12.9% with NUTRISCORE. The highest agreement among the nutritional screening tests was observed between MUST and PG-SGA (ƙ =0.64). Conclusions: GLIM criteria detected a higher prevalence of malnutrition compared to PG-SGA; however, PG-SGA demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity. Both significantly agree with low dynamometry and low BMI. Among the nutritional screening tests, MUST and PG-SGA showed the highest agreement.

Background: Malnutrition is a prevalent issue among cancer patients, negatively impacting clinical outcomes and survival, emphasizing the need for effective nutritional screening in this population. Methods: This study aimed to assess the performance of various nutritional screening tools and their association with malnutrition, obesity, overweight, and hand grip strength (HGS) in Mexican cancer outpatients. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 396 adult outpatients at a public hospital in Mexico. Nutritional risk was evaluated using NRS-2002, MUST, MST, NUTRISCORE, and PG-SGA, while malnutrition was determined through GLIM criteria and PG-SGA. Anthropometric and demographic data were collected, and analyses included sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficients for screening tool performance. Results: Nutritional risk was identified in 22.7–26.5% of patients, with the highest agreement between MUST and PG-SGA (k=0.64). Malnutrition prevalence was higher using GLIM criteria (37.4%) compared to PG-SGA (25.8%, p<0.001). Additionally, a high prevalence of overweight (37.1%) and obesity (23.5%) was observed in this patient population. Low BMI and reduced HGS were significantly associated with nutritional risk and malnutrition (p<0.001). Conclusions: The findings indicate that MUST and PG-SGA are reliable tools for nutritional screening in cancer outpatients, while GLIM criteria reveal a higher prevalence of malnutrition. The elevated rates of obesity and overweight highlight the unique nutritional challenges in cancer patients.