Sasikarn Chamchod1, Clifton D Fuller2, Abdallah S R Mohamed3, Aaron Grossberg4, Jay A Messer5, Jolien Heukelom6, G Brandon Gunn4, Micheal E Kantor4, Hillary Eichelberger5, Adam S Garden4, David I Rosenthal4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Radiation Oncology Unit, Chulabhorn Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: cdfuller@mdanderson.org. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt. Electronic address: asmohamed@mdanderson.org. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, TX, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We undertook a challenge to determine if one or more height-weight formula(e) can be clinically used as a surrogate for direct CT-based imaging assessment of body composition before and after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, who are at risk for cancer- and therapy-associated cachexia/sarcopenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective single-institution study included 215 HNC patients, treated with curative radiotherapy between 2003 and 2013. Height/weight measures were tabulated. Skeletal muscle mass was contoured on pre- and post-treatment CT at the L3 vertebral level. Three common lean body mass (LBM) formulae (Hume, Boer, and James) were calculated, and compared to CT assessment at each time point. RESULTS: 156 patients (73%) had tumors arising in the oropharynx and 130 (61%) received concurrent chemotherapy. Mean pretreatment body mass index (BMI) was 28.5±4.9kg/m(2) in men and 27.8±8kg/m(2) in women. Mean post-treatment BMI were 26.2±4.4kg/m(2) in men, 26±7.5kg/m(2) in women. Mean CT-derived LBM decreased from 55.2±11.8kg pre-therapy to 49.27±9.84kg post-radiation. Methods comparison revealed 95% limit of agreement of ±12.5-13.2kg between CT and height-weight formulae. Post-treatment LBM with the three formulae was significantly different from CT (p<0.0001). In all instances, no height-weight formula was practically equivalent to CT within±5kg. CONCLUSION: Formulae cannot accurately substitute for direct quantitative imaging LBM measurements. We therefore recommend CT-based LBM assessment as a routine practice of head and neck cancer patient body composition.
OBJECTIVES: We undertook a challenge to determine if one or more height-weight formula(e) can be clinically used as a surrogate for direct CT-based imaging assessment of body composition before and after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, who are at risk for cancer- and therapy-associated cachexia/sarcopenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective single-institution study included 215 HNC patients, treated with curative radiotherapy between 2003 and 2013. Height/weight measures were tabulated. Skeletal muscle mass was contoured on pre- and post-treatment CT at the L3 vertebral level. Three common lean body mass (LBM) formulae (Hume, Boer, and James) were calculated, and compared to CT assessment at each time point. RESULTS: 156 patients (73%) had tumors arising in the oropharynx and 130 (61%) received concurrent chemotherapy. Mean pretreatment body mass index (BMI) was 28.5±4.9kg/m(2) in men and 27.8±8kg/m(2) in women. Mean post-treatment BMI were 26.2±4.4kg/m(2) in men, 26±7.5kg/m(2) in women. Mean CT-derived LBM decreased from 55.2±11.8kg pre-therapy to 49.27±9.84kg post-radiation. Methods comparison revealed 95% limit of agreement of ±12.5-13.2kg between CT and height-weight formulae. Post-treatment LBM with the three formulae was significantly different from CT (p<0.0001). In all instances, no height-weight formula was practically equivalent to CT within±5kg. CONCLUSION: Formulae cannot accurately substitute for direct quantitative imaging LBM measurements. We therefore recommend CT-based LBM assessment as a routine practice of head and neck cancerpatient body composition.
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: Catarina Veiga; Jamie McClelland; Syed Moinuddin; Ana Lourenço; Kate Ricketts; James Annkah; Marc Modat; Sébastien Ourselin; Derek D'Souza; Gary Royle Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Lucas Stone; Brennan Olson; Alia Mowery; Stephanie Krasnow; Angie Jiang; Ryan Li; Joshua Schindler; Mark K Wax; Peter Andersen; Daniel Marks; Virginie Achim; Daniel Clayburgh Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Bárbara Ferrão; Pedro Miguel Neves; Teresa Santos; Manuel Luís Capelas; Antti Mäkitie; Paula Ravasco Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-06-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Aaron J Grossberg; Crosby D Rock; Jared Edwards; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Debra Ruzensky; Angela Currie; Patricia Rosemond; Jack Phan; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank; William H Morrison; Adam S Garden; Clifton D Fuller; David I Rosenthal Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 6.901
Authors: Aniek T Zwart; Anouk van der Hoorn; Peter M A van Ooijen; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Geertruida H de Bock; Gyorgy B Halmos Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Martine J Sealy; Martijn M Stuiver; Julie Midtgaard; Cees P van der Schans; Jan L N Roodenburg; Harriët Jager-Wittenaar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 3.390