Introduction: Patients with cancer in the digestive tract present changes in their nutritional
status which can lead to multiple degrees of malnutrition. The evaluation of nutritional status
is crucial to identify the risk of malnutrition or an existent malnutrition. Objective: To
characterize the clinical, anthropometric and dietary profile of patients with cancer in the
digestive tract admitted to a University Hospital in Belém, PA. Methods: This is a descriptive,
crosssectional and prospective study with analytical quality, conducted at Hospital
Universitário João de Barros Barreto (HUJBB), from july 2018 to march 2020, in Belém/PA.
The sample consisted in adults and elderly patients of both sexes diagnosed with cancer in the
digestive system and attached glands. Results: 59 patients with digestive tract cancer were
included, about 50.8% were male and 49.2% female, 96.6% were former smokers and 76.3%
were former alcoholics. The main gastrointestinal symptoms presented were constipation about
36%, vomiting with 22.3%, diarrhea and abdominal pain both with 18.6%. In swallowing
disorders, odynophagia and dysphagia were manifested for 28.8% and 27.1%, respectively.
From neurological disoders, headache by 20.3% of the patients and motor weakness by about
17% were the most frequent symptoms. The most frequent type of cancer was stomach cancer,
57.6%, followed by intestine, 16.9%, and esophagus, 10.2%. Most of the adults, 61.8%, were
classified as eutrophic in terms of BMI, while the elderly, 60%, were malnourished. Of the 59
patients, 62.7% were malnourished (light, moderate or severe) in terms of brachial
circumference. From 25 elderly, 56% presented loss of muscular mass based on calf
circumference. About food habits, there was an increase on the consumption of carcinogenic
food. Conclusion: The malnutrition proved to be prevalent in these patients, mainly in elderly.
The presence of symptoms and food inappetence were associated with antineoplastic treatment.
It was also observed a high consumption of food promoters at the expense of food protectors.
|
