SLPCohortCoDAS2025

Swallowing ability, nutritional status, and functioning in adults with advanced cancer excluding head, neck, and upper gastrointestinal tract: a cross-sectional study in an outpatient palliative care setting.

Danielle Nunes Moura Silva, Yohane Cristina Guimarães Jardim, Laélia Cristina Caseiro Vicente and 1 others

PMID 40862399

WHAT IT FOUND

In adults with advanced cancer outside the head, neck and upper digestive tract, mild swallowing changes went with worse daily function and poorer nutrition.

Most still ate and drank by mouth.

Key findings

01FOIS showed 74.4% scored 7 and 25.6% scored 6, with no lower scores found.

02PARD showed normal swallowing in 63.2%, functional swallowing in 34.2%, and mild oropharyngeal dysphagia in 2.6%; all nutrition and hydration were maintained orally.

03Swallowing ability was significantly associated with ECOG-PS and PG-SGA results.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study included only 39 adults, all with stage IV cancer and 68.0% receiving chemotherapy, so it cannot be generalized to other cancer populations or more advanced palliative groups. It was cross-sectional and used a convenience sample, so it shows association only and cannot show that poor function or nutrition caused swallowing changes. Swallowing was assessed clinically with PARD and FOIS, not with instrumental studies such as videofluoroscopic swallowing study. The PARD protocol was not repeated across volumes as originally recommended because of nausea and vomiting, so the assessment was simplified for patient comfort. Participants had to be able to consent and were excluded if PPS was 20 or below or if they had head, neck, upper gastrointestinal, neurological, or craniofacial conditions, so the sample was not representative of all advanced cancer patients. Refusal was related to deteriorated health, so the sample may have included more stable patients. The sample was heterogeneous, and not all confounding factors may have been controlled.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as proof that a swallowing intervention improves function or nutrition. The study was cross-sectional, used a convenience sample of 39 adults, did not use instrumental swallowing assessment, and all nutrition and hydration remained oral.

Read it on PubMed →