Lisa Martin1. 1. Department of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cachexia limits cancer therapy, quality of life, and survival of patients with cancer. Challenges identifying and diagnosing cachexia are due to disparities in diagnostic criteria. A framework for classification of cancer cachexia was recently defined by international consensus. This review describes recent efforts to use this framework to develop definitive diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia. RECENT FINDINGS: The principle proposed in the cancer cachexia framework for development of diagnostic criteria is that 'definitive cutoffs for variables could be determined from large contemporary datasets by determining the values that relate optimally to meaningful patient-centered outcomes.' Clearly defined statistical methods to examine distributions of diagnostic criteria in relation to an outcome are used to achieve this task. As a first step, a dataset of more than 11 000 cancer patients from Europe and Canada was compiled, and used to develop and validate a new grading system for cancer-associated weight loss, based on a risk stratification with survival as the outcome. The next refinements for diagnostic criteria will be enabled by the emergence of rich datasets including key variables further specifying the nature of cachexia such as skeletal muscle depletion, reduced food intake, and inflammation. SUMMARY: Development of diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia is based on a solid conceptual foundation and is moving toward defining the type of assessments, optimal values, and combinations of criteria that best define cachexia. Large contemporary datasets representing different cancer populations, candidate cachexia diagnostic criteria, and clinical outcomes will further ensure developmental and validation efforts.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cachexia limits cancer therapy, quality of life, and survival of patients with cancer. Challenges identifying and diagnosing cachexia are due to disparities in diagnostic criteria. A framework for classification of cancer cachexia was recently defined by international consensus. This review describes recent efforts to use this framework to develop definitive diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia. RECENT FINDINGS: The principle proposed in the cancer cachexia framework for development of diagnostic criteria is that 'definitive cutoffs for variables could be determined from large contemporary datasets by determining the values that relate optimally to meaningful patient-centered outcomes.' Clearly defined statistical methods to examine distributions of diagnostic criteria in relation to an outcome are used to achieve this task. As a first step, a dataset of more than 11 000 cancerpatients from Europe and Canada was compiled, and used to develop and validate a new grading system for cancer-associated weight loss, based on a risk stratification with survival as the outcome. The next refinements for diagnostic criteria will be enabled by the emergence of rich datasets including key variables further specifying the nature of cachexia such as skeletal muscle depletion, reduced food intake, and inflammation. SUMMARY: Development of diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia is based on a solid conceptual foundation and is moving toward defining the type of assessments, optimal values, and combinations of criteria that best define cachexia. Large contemporary datasets representing different cancer populations, candidate cachexia diagnostic criteria, and clinical outcomes will further ensure developmental and validation efforts.
Authors: Bette J Caan; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Candyce H Kroenke; Stacey Alexeeff; Jingjie Xiao; Erin Weltzien; Elizabeth Cespedes Feliciano; Adrienne L Castillo; Charles P Quesenberry; Marilyn L Kwan; Carla M Prado Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jingxuan Yang; Zicheng Zhang; Yuqing Zhang; Xiaoling Ni; Guohua Zhang; Xiaobo Cui; Mingyang Liu; Can Xu; Qiang Zhang; Huiyun Zhu; Jie Yan; Vivian F Zhu; Yusheng Luo; John P Hagan; Zhaoshen Li; Jing Fang; Aminah Jatoi; Martin E Fernandez-Zapico; Lei Zheng; Barish H Edil; Michael S Bronze; Courtney W Houchen; Yi-Ping Li; Min Li Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: David P J van Dijk; Maikel J A M Bakens; Mariëlle M E Coolsen; Sander S Rensen; Ronald M van Dam; Martijn J L Bours; Matty P Weijenberg; Cornelis H C Dejong; Steven W M Olde Damink Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Jennifer B Permuth; Jung W Choi; Dung-Tsa Chen; Kun Jiang; Gina DeNicola; Jian-Nong Li; Domenico Coppola; Barbara A Centeno; Anthony Magliocco; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Nipun Merchant; Jose G Trevino; Daniel Jeong Journal: Cancer Biol Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.248
Authors: Traver J Wright; E Lichar Dillon; William J Durham; Albert Chamberlain; Kathleen M Randolph; Christopher Danesi; Astrid M Horstman; Charles R Gilkison; Maurice Willis; Gwyn Richardson; Sandra S Hatch; Daniel C Jupiter; Susan McCammon; Randall J Urban; Melinda Sheffield-Moore Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2018-04-14 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Jennifer B Permuth; Ashley Clark Daly; Daniel Jeong; Jung W Choi; Miles E Cameron; Dung-Tsa Chen; Jamie K Teer; Tracey E Barnett; Jiannong Li; Benjamin D Powers; Nagalakshmi B Kumar; Thomas J George; Karla N Ali; Tri Huynh; Shraddha Vyas; Clement K Gwede; Vani N Simmons; Pamela J Hodul; Estrella M Carballido; Andrew R Judge; Jason B Fleming; Nipun Merchant; Jose G Trevino Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Angela M Osmolak; Cristine N Klatt-Cromwell; Amber M Price; Jose A Sanclement; Greg A Krempl Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2019-05-15