| Literature DB >> 30286724 |
Damien Botsen1, Marie-Amélie Ordan2, Coralie Barbe3, Camille Mazza2, Marine Perrier2, Johanna Moreau2,4, Mathilde Brasseur2,4, Yohann Renard5, Barbara Taillière6, Florian Slimano2, Eric Bertin7, Olivier Bouché2,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: FIGHTDIGO study showed the feasibility and acceptability of handgrip strength (HGS) measure in routine in 201 consecutive patients with digestive cancer treated with ambulatory chemotherapy. The present study focuses on the second aim of FIGHTDIGO study: the relationships between pre-therapeutic dynapenia and chemotherapy-induced Dose-Limiting Toxicities (DLT).Entities:
Keywords: Antineoplastic agents; Digestive system neoplasms; Dose-limiting toxicity; Dynapenia; Muscle strength; Sarcopenia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30286724 PMCID: PMC6172807 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4860-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Baseline characteristics (n = 45)
| Characteristicsa | Value |
|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD | 66.2 ± 12.3 |
| Sex | |
| Male | 21 (46.7) |
| Female | 24 (53.3) |
| Body Mass Index, mean ± SD, kg/m2 | 23.2 ± 4.1 |
| BMI categories, No. (%) | |
| Malnutrition b | 7 (15.6) |
| Normal | 24 (53.3) |
| Overweight c | 14 (31.1) |
| ECOG PS, No. (%) | |
| 0 | 12 (26.7) |
| 1 | 31 (68.9) |
| 2 | 2 (4.4) |
| mGPSd, No. (%) | |
| 0 | 17 (43.6) |
| 1 | 17(43.6) |
| 2 | 5 (12.8) |
| Hospitalizations number, median [range] | 10 [0–18] |
| Follow-up, median [range], days | 167 [0–189] |
| Primary tumor location, No. (%) | |
| Colon and rectum | 22 (48.9) |
| Esophagus | 3 (6.7) |
| Stomach | 5 (11.1) |
| Biliary tract | 1 (2.2) |
| Pancreas | 9 (20.0) |
| Small intestine | 1 (2.2) |
| Neuroendocrine tumor | 2 (4.4) |
| Unknown | 2 (4.4) |
| Stage, No. (%) | |
| Local | 20 (44.4) |
| Locally advanced | 6 (13.3) |
| Metastatic | 19 (42.2) |
| Type of treatment, No. (%) | |
| Chemotherapy | 38 (84.4) |
| Chemotherapy and biotherapy | 7 (15.6) |
| Chemotherapy protocol, No. (%) | |
| 5FU + OXALIPLATIN | 22 (48.9) |
| 5FU + IRINOTECAN + OXALIPLATIN | 7 (15.6) |
| 5FU alone | 6 (13.3) |
| GEMCITABINE | 5 (11.1) |
| 5FU-DACARBAZINE | 2 (4.4) |
| 5FU + IRINOTECAN | 1 (2.2) |
| GEMCITABINE + OXALIPLATIN | 1 (2.2) |
| VP16 + CISPLATINE | 1 (2.2) |
| Neurotoxic chemotherapy e, No. (%) | 31 (68.9) |
| Biotherapy protocol, No. (%) | |
| BEVACIZUMAB | 6/7 (85.7) |
| CETUXIMAB | 1/7 (14.3) |
| Dynapenia, No. (%) | 11 (24.4) |
SD standard deviation, BMI body mass index, mGPS modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Criteria Performance Status
aData are expressed as No (%) unless otherwise indicated
bmalnutrition was defined as BMI < 21 kg/m2 in patients aged more than 70 years old and BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 in patients aged less than 70 years old
coverweight was defined as BMI > 25 kg/m2
d6 missing data
eneurotoxic regimens: 5FU + IRINOTECAN+OXALIPLATIN, 5FU + OXALIPLATIN,GEMCITABINE + OXALIPLATIN; VP16-CISPLATINE
Factors associated with chemotherapy-induced Dose-Limiting Toxicities (DLT)
| Characteristicsa | DLTs | No DLT | Univariate analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Maximum handgrip strength, mean ± SD | 26.1 ± 7.2 | 31.2 ± 10.8 | 0.21 |
| Dynapenia | 7 (31.8) | 4 (17.4) | 0.62 |
| Age, mean ± | 66.2 ± 13.5 | 66.3 ± 11.4 | 0.53 |
| ECOG PS | 0.90 | ||
| 0 | 6 (27.3) | 6 (26.1) | |
| 1 | 16 (72.7) | 15 (65.2) | |
| 2 | 0 (0) | 2 (8.7) | |
| mGPSb | 0.12 | ||
| 0, N (%) | 11 (64.7) | 6 (35.3) | |
| 1, N (%) | 7 (41.2) | 10 (58.8) | |
| 2, N (%) | 2 (40.0) | 3 (60.0) | |
| 0 | 11 (55.0) | 6 (31.6) | |
| 1 | 7 (35.0) | 10 (52.6) | |
| 2 | 2 (10.0) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Primary tumor location | 0.21 | ||
| Colon and rectum | 12 (57.1) | 10 (45.4) | |
| Esophagus | 1 (4.8) | 2 (9.1) | |
| Stomach | 1 (4.8) | 4 (18.2) | |
| Biliary tract | 1 (4.8) | 0 (0) | |
| Pancreas | 6 (28.6) | 3 (13.6) | |
| Small intestine | 0 (0) | 1 (4.5) | |
| Neuroendocrine tumor | 0 (0) | 2 (9.1) | |
| Stage | 22 (48.8) | 23 (51.2) | 0.77 |
| Local, N (%) | 11 (55.0) | 9 (45.0) | |
| Locally advanced, N (%) | 3 (50.0) | 3 (50.0) | |
| Metastatic, N (%) | 8 (42.1) | 11 (57.9) | |
| Local | 11 (50) | 9 (39.1) | |
| Locally advanced | 3 (13.6) | 3 (13.0) | |
| Metastatic | 8 (36.4) | 11 (47.8) | |
| BMI, mean ± SD, kg/m2 | 22.7 ± 3.9 | 23.8 ± 4.3 | 0.64 |
| BMI categories | 0.36 | ||
| Malnutrition c | 5 (22.7) | 2 (8.7) | |
| Normal | 11 (50.0) | 13 (56.5) | |
| Overweightd | 6 (27.3) | 8 (34.8) |
SD standard deviation, BMI body mass index, mGPS modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Criteria Performance Status
aData are expressed as No (%) unless otherwise indicated
b6 missing data
cmalnutrition was defined as BMI < 21 kg/m2 in patients aged more than 70 years old and BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 in patients aged less than 70 years old
doverweight was defined as BMI > 25 kg/m2
Factors associated with chemotherapy-induced Dose-Limiting Neurotoxicity (DLN)
| Characteristicsa | DLNs | No DLN | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysisd | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | HR [95% CI] | |||
| Maximum handgrip strength, mean ± SD | 29.1 ± 10.3 | 28.5 ± 9.1 | 0.64 | ||
| Dynapenia | 0.13 | 0.02 | |||
| No | 12 (63.2) | 22 (84.6) | 1 | ||
| Yes | 7 (36.8) | 4 (15.4) | 3.5 [1.3; 9.8] | ||
| Age, mean ± SD | 65.9 ± 11.5 | 66.5 ± 13.1 | 0.89 | ||
| ECOG PS | 0.04 | 0.03 | |||
| 0 | 8 (42.1) | 4 (15.4) | 1 | ||
| 1 or 2 | 11 (57.9) | 22 (84.6) | 0.4 [0.2; 0.9] | ||
| mGPS b | 0.39 | ||||
| 0 | 8 (50.0) | 9 (39.1) | |||
| 1 | 8 (50.0) | 9 (39.1) | |||
| 2 | 0 (0.0) | 2 (21.7) | |||
| Primary Tumor location | 0.02 | 0.01 | |||
| Stomach – Biliary tract – Small Intestine | 6 (31.6) | 1 (4.2) | 3.6 [1.3; 10.0] | ||
| Other location | 13 (68.4) | 23 (95.8) | 1 | ||
| Stage | 0.49 | ||||
| Local | 10 (52.6) | 10 (38.5) | |||
| Locally advanced | 1 (5.3) | 5 (19.2) | |||
| Metastatic | 8 (42.1) | 11 (42.3) | |||
| BMI, mean ± SD, kg/m2 | 23.9 ± 3.4 | 22.8 ± 4.5 | 0.048 | ||
| Overweight, No. (%)c | 0.02 | ||||
| Yes | 9 (47.4) | 5 (19.2) | |||
| No | 10 (52.6) | 21 (80.8) | |||
SD standard deviation, HR Hazard Ratio, BMI body mass index, mGPS modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Criteria Performance Status
aData are expressed as No (%) unless otherwise indicated
b6 missing data
coverweight was defined as BMI > 25 kg/m2
dfour variables were included in multivariate analysis: dynapenia, ECOG PS, overweight and tumoral location, neurotoxic chemotherapy was not included in multivariate analysis because of one strata has no event (convergence wasn’t satisfied)
Fig. 1Association between dynapenia and Dose-Limiting Neurotoxicity (DLN). p = 0.002. Hazard Ratio = 3.5 [1.3; 9.8]
Factors associated with dose adaptation
| Characteristics a | Dose adaptation | Dose complete | Univariate analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| ECOG PS | 0.70 | ||
| 0 | 2 (16.7) | 10 (83.3) | |
| 1 or 2 | 8 (24.2) | 25 (75.8) | |
| Malnutrition | 2 (28.6) | 5 (71.4) | 0.64 |
aData are expressed as No (%) unless otherwise indicated
ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Criteria Performance Status, SD standard deviation; malnutrition was defined as BMI < 21 kg/m2 in patients aged more than 70 years old and BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 in patients aged less than 70 years old