Sivesh K Kamarajah1, James Bundred1, Benjamin H L Tan2. 1. Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 2. Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. benjamin.tan@uhb.nhs.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There has recently been increased interest in the assessment of body composition in patients with gastric cancer for the purpose of prognostication. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the current literature on body composition assessment in patients with gastric cancer and its impact on peri-operative outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting assessment of body composition in patients with gastric cancers. Meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes (overall and major complications, anastomotic leaks, pulmonary complications) and survival was performed using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies reported the assessment of body composition in 8402 patients. Methods used to assess body composition in patients with gastric cancers were computerized tomography (n = 26), bioelectrical impedance analysis (n = 9), and dual-energy-X-ray-absorptiometry (n = 3). Only 21 studies reported the impact of pre-operative sarcopenia on post-operative outcomes. Sarcopenic patients have significantly higher rates of postoperative major complications (n = 12, OR 1.67, CI95% 1.14-2.46, p = 0.009), and pulmonary (n = 8, OR 4.01, CI95% 2.23-7.21, p < 0.001) complications after gastrectomy. Meta-analysis of nine studies reporting overall survival after gastrectomy identified significantly worse survival in patients with pre-operative sarcopenia (HR 2.12, CI95% 1.89-2.38, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of body composition has the potential to become a clinically useful tool that could support decision-making in patients with gastric cancer. However, variation in methods of assessing and reporting body composition in this patient group limits assessment of current post-operative outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: There has recently been increased interest in the assessment of body composition in patients with gastric cancer for the purpose of prognostication. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the current literature on body composition assessment in patients with gastric cancer and its impact on peri-operative outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting assessment of body composition in patients with gastric cancers. Meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes (overall and major complications, anastomotic leaks, pulmonary complications) and survival was performed using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies reported the assessment of body composition in 8402 patients. Methods used to assess body composition in patients with gastric cancers were computerized tomography (n = 26), bioelectrical impedance analysis (n = 9), and dual-energy-X-ray-absorptiometry (n = 3). Only 21 studies reported the impact of pre-operative sarcopenia on post-operative outcomes. Sarcopenic patients have significantly higher rates of postoperative major complications (n = 12, OR 1.67, CI95% 1.14-2.46, p = 0.009), and pulmonary (n = 8, OR 4.01, CI95% 2.23-7.21, p < 0.001) complications after gastrectomy. Meta-analysis of nine studies reporting overall survival after gastrectomy identified significantly worse survival in patients with pre-operative sarcopenia (HR 2.12, CI95% 1.89-2.38, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of body composition has the potential to become a clinically useful tool that could support decision-making in patients with gastric cancer. However, variation in methods of assessing and reporting body composition in this patient group limits assessment of current post-operative outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Body composition; Gastrectomy; Gastric Cancer; Outcomes; Sarcopenia; Survival
Authors: O Köstek; N C Demircan; A Gökyer; A Küçükarda; B S Sunal; M B Hacıoğlu; H Eslame; S Solak; E Yılmaz; S Uzunoğlu; N Tunçbilek; I Çiçin; B Erdoğan Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 3.405