Why nutrition assessment is important
Nutrition assessment is different from nutrition screening in that it:
- Determines the presence of malnutrition (diagnosis) and other nutrition disorders
- Determines the severity and causes of malnutrition
- Is used to stratify and plan nutrition interventions1.
Who can assess
Nutrition assessment should be completed by a qualified/accredited dietitian.
Who should receive a nutrition assessment
It is recommended that individuals with a cancer treatment plan known to lead to high risk of malnutrition or other nutrition disorder such as sarcopenia or cachexia, should also be referred to the dietitian to have a comprehensive nutrition assessment2. This includes those undergoing major surgery to the gastrointestinal tract.
All individuals screened as ‘at risk’ of malnutrition should be referred to the dietitian for a comprehensive nutrition assessment.

What and how to assess
Comprehensive nutrition assessment
In order to effectively stratify and plan individual nutrition interventions, a comprehensive nutrition assessment is needed to determine the presence of malnutrition (diagnosis), as well as the severity and causes of malnutrition and other inter-related nutrition disorders such as sarcopenia and cachexia1,3-5.
A comprehensive nutrition assessment involves an evaluation of the following elements3-5:

The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is an assessment tool used to diagnose the presence of malnutrition, which also incorporates a number of the elements required in undertaking a comprehensive nutrition assessment, to determine the causes and severity of malnutrition4,8,9, such as:
- nutrition impact symptoms
- reduced food intake
- functional status assessment to determine muscle strength and function
- nutrition-focused physical examination (fat mass, muscle mass and oedema).
Malnutrition diagnosis
The most important part of a comprehensive assessment is diagnosing if the individual is clinically malnourished and the severity of malnutrition. This allows the individual to be stratified into receiving targeted or specialist nutritional care by the dietitian, which determines the intensity of the nutrition intervention.
A diagnosis of malnutrition can be made using different validated tools and/or criteria (see Resources section below for more details):
- Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA)9
- Global Leadership initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM)10
- Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)11.
Assessment measures
The scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) has been validated for use in cancer patients and is internationally recognised as the preferred assessment tool to diagnose the presence of malnutrition, and also to determine the severity and causes of malnutrition4,8,9.
It can be performed by a dietitian or other clinician who is specifically trained in completing the PG-SGA.
The PG-SGA incorporates the core phenotypic and etiologic criteria to diagnose malnutrition, as per the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) guidelines10:
| Phenotypic | Etiologic |
| BMI <20 (if <70years) or <22 (if >70years) | Reduced food intake |
| Unintentional loss of weight >5% | Presence of inflammation |
| Reduced muscle mass at 4 sites |
It also incorporates a number of the elements required in undertaking a comprehensive nutrition assessment, in order to determine the causes and severity of malnutrition, such as:
- nutrition impact symptoms
- reduced food intake
- functional status assessment to determine muscle strength and function
- nutrition-focused physical examination (fat mass, muscle mass and oedema).
The PG-SGA produces a global nutrition status category of A, B or C, which can be used to stratify nutrition interventions in the prehabilitation setting into universal (well nourished, PG-SGA A), targeted (moderate/suspected malnutrition, PG-SGA B) or specialised (severely malnourished, PG-SGA C). It also produces an additive numerical score, which can be used for triage recommendations and to monitor nutritional status over time. See table 1 for more detailed information.
Table 1, details of PG-SGA
The PG-SGA consists of 7 items, each covering an nutrition-related aspect that impacts nutritional status. The first 4 items are designed to be completed by the patient (weight, food intake, symptoms, activities and function). The remaining 3 are completed by a dietitian/suitably trained clinician (disease status, metabolic demand, physical exam).
| Number of items | Time to complete | Cut offs for risk stratification | Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) | Can be completed by any clinician? | Can be completed by patient? | Can be completed remotely? | Freely available? | Equipment / resources required |
| 7 | 10 mins | PG-SGA A = well nourished (universal), PG-SGA B = moderate / suspected malnutrition (targeted) or PG-SGA C = severe malnutrition (specialised) | Change in PG-SGA category A, B or C * | Dietitian or clinician specifically trained in completing PG-SGA | First 4 sections only (screening component only) | Yes | Yes | Nil |
* There is no published minimum clinically significant difference for the PG-SGA numerical score15
It is well established that low muscle mass is common in cancer patients and is associated with negative surgical outcomes. Reduced muscle mass is a diagnostic feature of malnutrition2,10, and the nutrition-focused physical exam incorporated into the PG-SGA aims to subjectively identify low muscle mass, as well as subcutaneous fat loss and oedema.
Direct methods for assessing muscle mass, in addition to the nutrition-focused physical exam, may be beneficial in a prehabilitation setting if available. They can be used to more objectively identify low muscle mass at baseline, as well as a measure of the effectiveness of nutrition/multimodal intervention.
There are multiple techniques for assessing muscle quantity and quality, such as computed tomography (CT), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) (see COSA BIA how to), muscle ultrasound and duel energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Each require a degree of training in administration and interpretation, as well as costs involved in equipment and licensing2,4,5.
If equipment for body composition assessment is not readily available, calf and/or mid upper arm circumference can be used as a surrogate measure of muscle mass2. See COSA calf circumference how to guide and COSA calf circumference instructional video
Muscle strength and function are associated with malnutrition status so are indirect measures of nutrition status.
Recommended measures include:
- Muscle strength: hand grip strength (see instructional video)
- Physical function: 6-min walk test, 30 sec sit to stand (and others).
These techniques are commonly performed by physiotherapists, exercise physiologists, dietitians or allied health assistants, and can be used to objectively determine strength and function at baseline, as well as a measure of the effectiveness of nutrition/multimodal interventions. Other indirect methods to determine change in muscle strength and function are measures of activities of daily living, such as ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status7.
It is recognised that low albumin is a clear surgical risk factor, however it reflects disease-associated catabolism and disease severity rather than undernutrition. For this reason, nutrition diagnosis should not be based on biochemical data alone, but can be considered as a complement to a thorough nutrition assessment3,12-14.
Resources
Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment:
Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM):
Subjective Global Assessment (SGA):
COSA Cancer-related Malnutrition and Sarcopenia Implementation Toolkit:
- Prado C, Laviano A, Gillis C, Sung A, Gardner M, Yalcin S, Dixon S, Newman S, Bastasch M, Sauer A, Hegazi R, Chasen M. Examining guidelines and new evidence in oncology nutrition: a position paper on gaps and opportunities in multimodal approaches to improve patient care. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30:3073-3083.
- Kiss N, Loeliger J, Findlay M, et al. Clinical Oncology Society of Australia: position statement on cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia. Nutr Diet. 2020;77:416–425.
- Gillis C, Hasil L, Kasvis P, Bibby N, Davies SJ, Prado C, West MA, Shaw C. Nutrition Care Process Model Approach to Surgical Prehabilitation in Oncology. Front Nutr. 2021;24(8):644706.
- Ford K, Prado C, Weimann A, Schuetz P, Lobo D. Unresolved issues in perioperative nutrition: A narrative Review. Clin Nutr. 2022;41:1578-1590.
- Prado C, Landi F, Chew STH, Atherton PJ, Molinger J, Ruck T, Gonzalez MC. Advances in muscle health and nutrition: A toolkit for healthcare professionals. Clin Nutr. 2022;41:2244-2263.
- Fischer A, JeVenn A, Hipskind P. Evaluation of muscle and fat loss as diagnostic criteria for malnutrition. Nutr Clin Pract. 2015:30(2):239-248.
- Russell MK. Functional assessment of nutrition status. Nutr Clin Pract. 2015 Apr;30(2):211-8.
- Jager-Wittenaar H, Ottery FD. Assessing nutritional status in cancer. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2017;20:322-329.
- Bauer J, Capra S, Ferguson M. Use of the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) as a nutrition assessment tool in patients with cancer. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002;56:779-785.
- Cederholm T, Jensen GL, Correia M, Gonzalez MC, Fukushima R, Higashiguchi T, et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition- a consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. Clin Nutr. 2019;38:1e9.
- Detsky AS, McLaughlin JR, Baker JP, Johnston N, Whittaker A, Mendelson RA, Jeejeebhoy KN. What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status? J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1987;11(1):8-13.
- Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, Higashiguchi T, Hubner M, Klek S, Laviano A, et al. ESPEN practical guideline: clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin Nutr. 2021;40:4745-4761.
- Bharadwaj S, Ginoya S, Tandon P, Gohel TD, Guirguis J, Vallabh H, et al. Malnutrition: laboratory markers vs nutritional assessment. Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;4:272-80.
- Lacy M, Roesch J, Langsjoen J. Things we do for no reason: prealbumin testing to diagnose malnutrition in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2019;14:239-41.