Eric J Roeland1, Joseph D Ma2, Sandahl H Nelson3, Tyler Seibert4, Sean Heavey4, Carolyn Revta4, Andrea Gallivan5, Vickie E Baracos5. 1. Oncology and Palliative Care, University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego), La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA. eroeland@ucsd.edu. 2. Skaggs School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4. Oncology and Palliative Care, University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego), La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA. 5. Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Participation in cancer cachexia clinical trials requires a defined weight loss (WL) over time. A loss in skeletal muscle mass, measured by cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) image analysis, represents a possible alternative. Our aim was to compare WL versus muscle loss in patients who were screened to participate in a cancer cachexia clinical trial. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer patients screened for an interventional cancer cachexia trial requiring a ≥5 % WL over the preceding 6 months. Concurrent CT images obtained as part of standard oncology care were analyzed for changes in total muscle and fat (visceral, subcutaneous, and total). RESULTS: Of patients screened (n = 36), 3 (8 %) enrolled in the trial, 17 (47 %) were excluded due to insufficient WL (<5 %), 3 (8 %) were excluded due to excessive WL (>20 %), and 16 (44 %) met inclusion criteria for WL. Patients who met screening criteria for WL (5-20 %) had a mean ± SD of 7.7 ± 8.7 % muscle loss, 24.4 ± 37.5 % visceral adipose loss, 21.6 ± 22.3 % subcutaneous adipose loss, and 22.1 ± 24.7 % total adipose loss. Patients excluded due to insufficient WL had 2 ± 6.4 % muscle loss, but a gain of 8.5 ± 39.8 % visceral adipose, and 4.2 ± 28.2 % subcutaneous adipose loss and 0.8 ± 28.4 % total adipose loss. Of the patients excluded due to WL <5 % (n = 17), 7 (41 %) had a skeletal muscle loss >5 %. CONCLUSIONS: Defining cancer cachexia by WL over time may be limited as it does not capture skeletal muscle loss. Cross-sectional CT body composition analysis may improve early detection of muscle loss and patient participation in future cancer cachexia clinical trials.
PURPOSE: Participation in cancer cachexia clinical trials requires a defined weight loss (WL) over time. A loss in skeletal muscle mass, measured by cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) image analysis, represents a possible alternative. Our aim was to compare WL versus muscle loss in patients who were screened to participate in a cancer cachexia clinical trial. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective analysis in metastatic colorectal cancerpatients screened for an interventional cancer cachexia trial requiring a ≥5 % WL over the preceding 6 months. Concurrent CT images obtained as part of standard oncology care were analyzed for changes in total muscle and fat (visceral, subcutaneous, and total). RESULTS: Of patients screened (n = 36), 3 (8 %) enrolled in the trial, 17 (47 %) were excluded due to insufficient WL (<5 %), 3 (8 %) were excluded due to excessive WL (>20 %), and 16 (44 %) met inclusion criteria for WL. Patients who met screening criteria for WL (5-20 %) had a mean ± SD of 7.7 ± 8.7 % muscle loss, 24.4 ± 37.5 % visceral adipose loss, 21.6 ± 22.3 % subcutaneous adipose loss, and 22.1 ± 24.7 % total adipose loss. Patients excluded due to insufficient WL had 2 ± 6.4 % muscle loss, but a gain of 8.5 ± 39.8 % visceral adipose, and 4.2 ± 28.2 % subcutaneous adipose loss and 0.8 ± 28.4 % total adipose loss. Of the patients excluded due to WL <5 % (n = 17), 7 (41 %) had a skeletal muscle loss >5 %. CONCLUSIONS: Defining cancer cachexia by WL over time may be limited as it does not capture skeletal muscle loss. Cross-sectional CT body composition analysis may improve early detection of muscle loss and patientparticipation in future cancer cachexia clinical trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cachexia; Cancer; Interventional trials; Muscle loss; Weight loss
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: 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: Marina Mourtzakis; Carla M M Prado; Jessica R Lieffers; Tony Reiman; Linda J McCargar; Vickie E Baracos Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Jessica R Lieffers; Marina Mourtzakis; Kevin D Hall; Linda J McCargar; Carla M M Prado; Vickie E Baracos Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-02-25 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Alejandro Recio-Boiles; Jose N Galeas; Bernard Goldwasser; Karla Sanchez; Louise M W Man; Ryan D Gentzler; Jane Gildersleeve; Patricia J Hollen; Richard J Gralla Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Louise E Daly; Éadaoin B Ní Bhuachalla; Derek G Power; Samantha J Cushen; Karl James; Aoife M Ryan Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Sara Nejatinamini; Brock J Debenham; Robin D Clugston; Asifa Mawani; Matthew Parliament; Wendy V Wismer; Vera C Mazurak Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Guohua Zhang; Lindsey J Anderson; Song Gao; Thomas K Sin; Zicheng Zhang; Hongyu Wu; Syed H Jafri; Solomon A Graf; Peter C Wu; Atreya Dash; Jose M Garcia; Yi-Ping Li Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2021-12-07