PG-SGA, GLIM, and CONUT in Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancer: Complementary Tools for Different Clinical Questions
5 affiliations
- 1First Propaedeutic Department of Surgery, Hippocration General Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
- 2Regional Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Unit, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
- 3Department of Environmental, Occupational Medicine and Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
- 4Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Research ‘K. Tountas’, Second Department of Surgery, Aretaieion Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece
- 5First Department of Surgery, Laikon General Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Malnutrition is among the most consequential yet inconsistently addressed comorbidities in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) cancer, arising at the intersection of cachexia, sarcopenia, systemic inflammation, hepatic dysfunction, and biliary obstruction. The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) framework, and the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score are often used interchangeably, but they serve different purposes: nutritional assessment, malnutrition diagnosis, and prognostic risk stratification, respectively. This narrative review compares what the three tools measure, summarizes the HPB-specific evidence for each, and proposes a framework for matching the tool to the clinical question. Methods: A structured narrative review was performed. PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for studies applying PG-SGA, GLIM, or CONUT in pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, or biliary tract cancer. HPB-specific evidence was prioritized and the evidence supporting each tool–tumor combination was classified by directness and study design. Results: Applied to the same populations, the tools report different prevalences and classify different patients. In the few HPB cohorts that directly compare tools, PG-SGA classified the largest proportion of patients as malnourished and is the only one of the three designed to record nutrition-impact symptoms and to guide intervention, but it is effort-dependent and may underdetect occult sarcopenia in cirrhosis. GLIM yields a criteria-based diagnosis with severity grading whose prevalence and prognostic value depend on how the muscle mass criterion is operationalized, for example from staging computed tomography. CONUT, computed from three routine laboratory values, is the least resource-intensive and is associated with survival across HPB tumor types in predominantly retrospective cohorts, but its components are confounded by hepatic dysfunction, cholestasis, and inflammation. Conclusions: PG-SGA, GLIM, and CONUT are complementary rather than interchangeable. Because direct comparative evidence in HPB cancer is limited, we propose a framework for matching each tool to the clinical question, tumor subtype, treatment phase and available resources, which requires prospective validation.
Related
- Global use of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine among adults with cancer in hospital and clinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Real-world evidence in a large cohort comparing FAPI and FDG PET/CT for hepatopancreatobiliary cancer diagnosis
- COMPLEMENTARY CLINICAL AND EXPLAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS FOR RISK STRATIFICATION OF CANCER-ASSOCIATED VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM
- Five Trials, Five Different Questions: Design Heterogeneity Among Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials After Lp(a)HORIZON
- The translational asymmetry of corpus callosotomy: Two literatures that answered different questions.
BibTeX
@article{stefanoudakis2026pgsga,
title = {{PG-SGA, GLIM, and CONUT in Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancer: Complementary Tools for Different Clinical Questions}},
author = {Dimitrios Stefanoudakis and Maximos Frountzas and Eva Karaniki and Dimitrios Vouros and Athanasios Emmanouil and Irene Lidoriki and Vasileia Kokala-Dimitropoulou and Dimitrios Theodorou and Dimitrios Schizas and Konstantinos G. Toutouzas},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15207883},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7883},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - PG-SGA, GLIM, and CONUT in Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancer: Complementary Tools for Different Clinical Questions
AU - Dimitrios Stefanoudakis
AU - Maximos Frountzas
AU - Eva Karaniki
AU - Dimitrios Vouros
AU - Athanasios Emmanouil
AU - Irene Lidoriki
AU - Vasileia Kokala-Dimitropoulou
AU - Dimitrios Theodorou
AU - Dimitrios Schizas
AU - Konstantinos G. Toutouzas
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15207883
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7883
AB - Background/Objectives: Malnutrition is among the most consequential yet inconsistently addressed comorbidities in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) cancer, arising at the intersection of cachexia, sarcopenia, systemic inflammation, hepatic dysfunction, and biliary obstruction. The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) framework, and the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score are often used interchangeably, but they serve different purposes: nutritional assessment, malnutrition diagnosis, and prognostic risk stratification, respectively. This narrative review compares what the three tools measure, summarizes the HPB-specific evidence for each, and proposes a framework for matching the tool to the clinical question. Methods: A structured narrative review was performed. PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for studies applying PG-SGA, GLIM, or CONUT in pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, or biliary tract cancer. HPB-specific evidence was prioritized and the evidence supporting each tool–tumor combination was classified by directness and study design. Results: Applied to the same populations, the tools report different prevalences and classify different patients. In the few HPB cohorts that directly compare tools, PG-SGA classified the largest proportion of patients as malnourished and is the only one of the three designed to record nutrition-impact symptoms and to guide intervention, but it is effort-dependent and may underdetect occult sarcopenia in cirrhosis. GLIM yields a criteria-based diagnosis with severity grading whose prevalence and prognostic value depend on how the muscle mass criterion is operationalized, for example from staging computed tomography. CONUT, computed from three routine laboratory values, is the least resource-intensive and is associated with survival across HPB tumor types in predominantly retrospective cohorts, but its components are confounded by hepatic dysfunction, cholestasis, and inflammation. Conclusions: PG-SGA, GLIM, and CONUT are complementary rather than interchangeable. Because direct comparative evidence in HPB cancer is limited, we propose a framework for matching each tool to the clinical question, tumor subtype, treatment phase and available resources, which requires prospective validation.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -