Se-Il Go1, Mi Jung Park2, Haa-Na Song1, Myoung Hee Kang1, Hee Jung Park3, Kyung Nyeo Jeon2, Seok-Hyun Kim3, Moon Jin Kim4, Jung-Hun Kang5, Gyeong-Won Lee6. 1. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Republic of Korea. 3. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon, Republic of Korea. 4. Myongji Hospital, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 5. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang Institute of Health Science, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Gangnam-ro 79, Jinju, 660-702, Republic of Korea. 6. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang Institute of Health Science, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Gangnam-ro 79, Jinju, 660-702, Republic of Korea. brightree24@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sarcopenia is suggested to be associated with cancer-related inflammation. We assessed the clinical outcome of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients according to sarcopenia and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). METHODS: A total of 117 male SCLC patients treated with first-line chemo- or chemoradiotherapy were assessed based on a retrospective chart review. The mass of the pectoralis muscle was measured by computed tomography and normalized to height. Patients with the lowest quartile of muscle mass were considered to have sarcopenia. Patients were classified into four groups according to their sarcopenia and NLR statuses: sarcopenia/high NLR, sarcopenia/low NLR, non-sarcopenia/high NLR, and non-sarcopenia/low NLR. RESULTS: Sarcopenic patients had lower progression-free survival (PFS) than did non-sarcopenic patients (median 6.0 vs. 7.5 months, p = 0.009), but the difference in overall survival (OS) was not statistically significant (median 10.5 vs. 13.5 months, p = 0.052). However, the OS of sarcopenic patients with high NLR was significantly lower than that in all other groups (median 3.2 vs. 16.0 vs. 12.5 vs. 13.7 months, respectively, p < 0.001), as was PFS (median 3.2 vs. 7.7 vs. 7.6 vs. 7.1 months, respectively, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, sarcopenia with high NLR was an independent prognostic factor for shorter PFS and OS. Early discontinuation of treatment (20.0 vs. 10.3 %) and treatment-related mortality (50.0 vs. 8.4 %) occurred more frequently in these patients than in the other groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In SCLC, sarcopenic male patients with high NLR have a poor prognosis and do not tolerate standard treatment. Intensive supportive care is needed in these patients.
PURPOSE: Sarcopenia is suggested to be associated with cancer-related inflammation. We assessed the clinical outcome of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients according to sarcopenia and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). METHODS: A total of 117 male SCLC patients treated with first-line chemo- or chemoradiotherapy were assessed based on a retrospective chart review. The mass of the pectoralis muscle was measured by computed tomography and normalized to height. Patients with the lowest quartile of muscle mass were considered to have sarcopenia. Patients were classified into four groups according to their sarcopenia and NLR statuses: sarcopenia/high NLR, sarcopenia/low NLR, non-sarcopenia/high NLR, and non-sarcopenia/low NLR. RESULTS: Sarcopenic patients had lower progression-free survival (PFS) than did non-sarcopenic patients (median 6.0 vs. 7.5 months, p = 0.009), but the difference in overall survival (OS) was not statistically significant (median 10.5 vs. 13.5 months, p = 0.052). However, the OS of sarcopenic patients with high NLR was significantly lower than that in all other groups (median 3.2 vs. 16.0 vs. 12.5 vs. 13.7 months, respectively, p < 0.001), as was PFS (median 3.2 vs. 7.7 vs. 7.6 vs. 7.1 months, respectively, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, sarcopenia with high NLR was an independent prognostic factor for shorter PFS and OS. Early discontinuation of treatment (20.0 vs. 10.3 %) and treatment-related mortality (50.0 vs. 8.4 %) occurred more frequently in these patients than in the other groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In SCLC, sarcopenic male patients with high NLR have a poor prognosis and do not tolerate standard treatment. Intensive supportive care is needed in these patients.
Authors: R N Baumgartner; K M Koehler; D Gallagher; L Romero; S B Heymsfield; R R Ross; P J Garry; R D Lindeman Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-04-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kenneth Fearon; Florian Strasser; Stefan D Anker; Ingvar Bosaeus; Eduardo Bruera; Robin L Fainsinger; Aminah Jatoi; Charles Loprinzi; Neil MacDonald; Giovanni Mantovani; Mellar Davis; Maurizio Muscaritoli; Faith Ottery; Lukas Radbruch; Paula Ravasco; Declan Walsh; Andrew Wilcock; Stein Kaasa; Vickie E Baracos Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Lisa Martin; Laura Birdsell; Neil Macdonald; Tony Reiman; M Thomas Clandinin; Linda J McCargar; Rachel Murphy; Sunita Ghosh; Michael B Sawyer; Vickie E Baracos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin H L Tan; Laura A Birdsell; Lisa Martin; Vickie E Baracos; Kenneth C H Fearon Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Carla M M Prado; Vickie E Baracos; Linda J McCargar; Tony Reiman; Marina Mourtzakis; Katia Tonkin; John R Mackey; Sheryl Koski; Edith Pituskin; Michael B Sawyer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Carla M M Prado; Jessica R Lieffers; Linda J McCargar; Tony Reiman; Michael B Sawyer; Lisa Martin; Vickie E Baracos Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mehmet Asim Bilen; Dylan J Martini; Yuan Liu; Julie M Shabto; Jacqueline T Brown; Milton Williams; Amir I Khan; Alexandra Speak; Colleen Lewis; Hannah Collins; Haydn T Kissick; Bradley C Carthon; Mehmet Akce; Walid L Shaib; Olatunji B Alese; Rathi N Pillai; Conor E Steuer; Christina S Wu; David H Lawson; Ragini R Kudchadkar; Bassel F El-Rayes; Suresh S Ramalingam; Taofeek K Owonikoko; R Donald Harvey; Viraj A Master Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-12-05
Authors: Blas A Guigni; Jos van der Velden; C Matthew Kinsey; James A Carson; Michael J Toth Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: M P Petrova; I S Donev; M A Radanova; M I Eneva; E G Dimitrova; G N Valchev; V T Minchev; M S Taushanova; M V Boneva; T S Karanikolova; R B Gencheva; G A Zhbantov; A I Ivanova; C V Timcheva; B P Pavlov; V G Megdanova; B S Robev; N V Conev Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Eun Young Kim; Young Saing Kim; Inkeun Park; Hee Kyung Ahn; Eun Kyung Cho; Yu Mi Jeong; Jeong Ho Kim Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ammar Sukari; Irfana Muqbil; Ramzi M Mohammad; Philip A Philip; Asfar S Azmi Journal: Semin Cancer Biol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 15.707