A lower psoas muscle volume was associated with a higher rate of recurrence in male clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is defined as a low skeletal muscle volume. Recent studies have reported that sarcopenia is associated with a poor prognosis in various cancers. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the correlation between the psoas muscle volume and recurrence-free survival in patients with localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).
METHODS: A total of 316 male patients with localized ccRCC who underwent radical nephrectomy at Yokohama City University Hospital (Yokohama, JAPAN) and Kanagawa Cancer Center (Yokohama, JAPAN) between 2002 and 2018 were enrolled in this study. The psoas muscle index (PMI) was calculated by normalizing the psoas muscle area on the contralateral side of the tumor on axial CT, which was calculated at the level of L4 (mm2) divided by the square of the body height (m2). We divided patients into two groups based on the median PMI (409.64mm2/m2).
RESULTS: The lower PMI group showed poorer recurrence-free survival (RFS) than the higher PMI group (p = 0.030). Regarding 5-year RFS, a lower PMI was a significant predictor of recurrence (p = 0.022, hazard ratio (HR): 2.306) and a multivariate analysis revealed that a lower PMI (<median, p = 0.035, HR: 2.167), tumor size >4 cm (p = 0.044, HR: 2.341), and pathological stage >2 (p<0.001, HR: 3.660) were independent risk factors for poor RFS.
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of sarcopenia (lower PMI) was found to be associated with poor RFS in male ccRCC patients. The PMI might serve as a measure of patient frailty and might be useful for prognostic risk stratification in ccRCC.

Introduction

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common malignant tumor of the adult kidney, accounting for 3.8% of all new cancers [1]. Resection of localized RCC is recommended as the only treatment for a complete cure. However, up to 30% of patients undergoing curative surgery will develop metastatic RCC [2, 3]. Surveillance can identify local recurrence or metastasis at an early stage. In patients with metastatic disease, extended tumor growth can limit the chance for surgical resection, considered the standard therapy in cases of resectable—and preferably solitary—lesions. In addition, the early diagnosis of tumor recurrence may enhance the efficacy of systemic treatment if the tumor burden is low. In order to better predict the prognosis, various centers have developed integrative prognostic tools, such as the University of California Integrated Staging System (UISS) and the Mayo Clinic Stage Size Grade Necrosis (SSIGN) score [4, 5]. These tools are clinically useful and improve the assessment of prognosis.

Recent studies have identified sarcopenia (loss of skeletal muscle mass) as one of the important factors for recurrence-free survival (RFS) [6]. The psoas muscle index (PMI), which was a relatively simple method to represent skeletal muscle volume in whole body. This index is attracting attentions as one of the prognostic factors for malignancy, although it was popularized as an index to quantify sarcopenia at first. The skeletal muscle mass is under investigation as a recurrence risk factor for malignant melanoma, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma and pancreatic cancer. [7-10]. However, whether sarcopenia is a risk factor for recurrence of RCC has remained unclear. There are several different musculature measurements that are used to quantify sarcopenia. The PMI, which is relatively simple to determine, is one of the measurements of sarcopenia.

This study examined the predictive value of the preoperative measurement of the PMI for localized clear cell RCC (ccRCC) for predicting the RFS after curative nephrectomy.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively assessed the importance of the PMI as a prognostic factor in male ccRCC patients. The primary endpoint was the RFS, the exposure variable was the PMI, and the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were secondary endpoints.

Patients

We examined consecutive male ccRCC patients who were treated with radical or partial nephrectomy with curative intent at Kanagawa Cancer Center (Yokohama, JAPAN) and Yokohama City University Hospital (Yokohama, JAPAN) from August 2002 to February 2018. Female patients were excluded from this study because female sex was associated with low rates of recurrence and cancer deaths and because the PMI is lower in women than in men, according to our previous reports [11]. In our previous study, the PMI was lower in women than in men (p<0.001) [S1 Fig] therefore, to exclude gender differences, we excluded women. In our cohort, only 9 of the 75 women followed-up for more than 1 year showed recurrence (median: 56.4 months). Due to this low number of cases, there was no marked difference in PMI between the non-recurrence and recurrence groups (median: 288.5 vs. 286.6, p = 0.463). Clinical and pathological data were collected, including the tumor characteristics, postoperative RFS, OS and CSS rates. All cases were staged preoperatively with chest and abdominal CT. A bone scan and brain imaging were performed when indicated by symptoms. The pathological stage was reassigned according to the 2009 TNM staging system. Patients with hereditary RCC were excluded.

Assessment of the PMI and psoas muscle volume (PMV)

We measured the cross-sectional areas of the major psoas muscle in contralateral side of the tumor at the level of L4 by manual tracing of a preoperative CT scan (Fig 1), and then PMI (mm2/m2) was calculated by normalizing the psoas muscle area (mm2) divided by the square of the body height (m2). The PMV (cm3) on the contralateral side of the tumor on a preoperative CT scan was measured using the Osirix software program (Pixmeo, Geneva, Switzerland) (Fig 2). To assess the correlation between the PMV and PMI, we sampled 11 patients; their background characteristics are shown in S1 Table.

Fig 1

Psoas muscle area calculated by axial CT.

Fig 2

Psoas muscle volume.

Follow-up

Patients were generally followed every 3 to 6 months for the first 2 years after primary renal surgery, every 6 months from the second through fifth year, and annually thereafter. Disease recurrence was defined as radiographic evidence of disease on CT, magnetic resonance imaging, or a bone scan. Equivocal imaging findings were followed by biopsy of the suspected lesion and were classified as disease recurrence after pathological confirmation.

Statistical analyses

The RFS, OS and CSS periods were calculated from the date of nephrectomy to the date at recurrence or last follow-up. The recurrence rates were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and the resultant curves were statistically tested by the log-rank method. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for the univariate and multivariate analyses. The correlation between the PMV and PMI was assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient analysis. P values of <0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance in all statistical tests. The statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS (version 25.0 SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and GraphPad Prism (La Jolla, CA, USA) software programs.

Ethical statement

This study was carried out in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yokohama City University Hospital (B160101010). This study is retrospective observational study and IRB did not require written patients consent.

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 316 patients were enrolled in this study. The median postoperative follow-up period was 68.8 months. Table 1 showed the clinicopathologic features of the enrolled patients. In this cohort, one patient received adjuvant treatment with pazopanib. A total of 49 patients (15.5%) had disease recurrence, 38 patients (11.7%) died of any cause, and there were 15 (4.7%) cancer deaths within the observation period. The 5-year RFS rate was 86.4% and the 5-year OS and CSS rates were 90.8% and 96%, respectively.

Table 1

Patient and tumor characteristics at primary radical surgery.

Variables		Number (%) or median (range)
Numbers of patients		316
Follow up periods (months)		68.8 (0–182)
Age at diagnosis (years)		63 (22–88)
Surgical procedure	Nephrectomy	202 (63.9%)
	Partial nephrectomy	114 (36.1%)
Affected Kidney	Right	168 (53.2%)
	Left	148 (46.8%)
ECOG PS	0	292 (93.9%)
	≥1	19 (6.1%)
Pathological Stage*	I	246 (77.8%)
	II	9 (2.8%)
	III	61 (19.3%)
	IV	0 (0.0%)
Tumor size	≤4cm	216 (68.4%)
	>4cm	100 (31.6%)
Nuclear grade	G1	57 (18.0%)
	G2	179 (56.6%)
	G3	66 (20.9%)
	G4	14 (4.4%)

* Pathologic stage: according to the 2009 TNM staging system

The preoperative PMI predicted the RFS within 5 years after primary surgery

A small number of patients were analyzed to confirm the correlation between the PMI and the PMV. There was a strong correlation between the PMI and PMV (R2 = 0.9502) (Fig 3). We therefore used the PMI instead of the PMV, because the method was easy to apply and because it could be determined without any additional software programs.

Fig 3

The correlation between PMI and PMV.

The PMI in the recurrence group was significantly lower than that in the no-recurrence group (p = 0.038) (Fig 4). The baseline characteristics of the recurrence and non-recurrence groups are shown in S2 Table. When we divided the patients into two groups according to the median PMI (409.64), the rate of recurrence in the lower PMI group was significantly higher than that in the higher PMI group (p = 0.030, HR 1.905 [95% CI: 1.065–3.408]). The OS and CSS rates in the lower and higher PMI groups did not differ to a statistically significant extent (p = 0.482 and p = 0.367, respectively). Table 2 showed the patient characteristics of the low and high PMI groups. When the results were analyzed focusing on recurrence within 5 years after surgery, a lower PMI value was a significant predictor of recurrence (P = 0.022, HR 2.306 (95% CI: 1.129–4.708)) (Fig 5). A multivariate analysis revealed that high stage, larger tumor size and lower PMI were independent risk factors for poor RFS (Table 3 and S3 Table).

Fig 4

PMI in non-recurrent and recurrent patients.

Table 2

Psoas muscle index and parameters.

		Low PMI (n = 158)	High PMI (n = 158)	p value
		Number (%)
Age	≤60yrs.	41 (25.9%)	84 (53.2%)	<0.001
	>60yrs.	117 (74.1%)	74 (46.8%)
Site	Right	83 (52.5%)	85 (53.8%)	0.822
	Left	75 (47.5%)	73 (46.2%)
PS	0	143 (92.3%)	149 (95.5%)	0.231
	≥1	12 (7.7%)	7 (4.5%)
Stage	1, 2	123 (77.8%)	132 (83.5%)	0.200
	3	35 (22.2%)	26 (16.5%)
Size	≤4cm	103 (65.2%)	113 (71.5%)	0.226
	>4cm	55 (34.8%)	45 (28.5%)
Grade	1, 2	111 (70.3%)	125 (79.1%)	0.070
	3, 4	47 (29.7%)	33 (20.9%)

Fig 5

Recurrence-free survival curve within 5 years after nephrectomy in higher and lower PMI.

Table 3

Recurrence risk factor within 5 years after nephrectomy.

		N	Univariate		Multivariate
			HR (95%CI)	p value	HR (95%CI)	p value
Age	≤60yrs.	125	1	0.113
	>60yrs.	191	1.811 (0.869–3.773)
Site	Right	168	1	0.907
	Left	148	1.040 (0.535–2.023)
PS	0	292	1	0.054
	≥1	19	2.797 (0.980–7.979)
Stage	1, 2	255	1	<0.001	1	<0.001
	3	61	6.775 (3.466–13.243)		3.660 (1.671–8.015)
Size	≤4cm	216	1	<0.001	1	0.044
	>4cm	100	4.452 (2.289–8.660)		2.341 (1.024–5.353)
Grade	1, 2	236	1	<0.001	1	0.172
	3, 4	80	3.768 (1.940–7.318)		1.660 (0.802–3.437)
PMI	High	158	1	0.022	1	0.035
	Low	158	2.306 (1.129–4.708)		2.167 (1.056–4.444)

The PMI at 5 years after surgery

We analyzed 146 patients without recurrence at 5 years after surgery and measured the PMI again at 5 years after surgery (median 60.1 months after surgery, range: 52.5–66.0 months). When the patients were divided into two groups according to the PMI using the same cutoff value (409.64), there was a tendency toward recurrence in the low PMI group (p = 0.077, HR 2.686 [95% CI: 0.898–8.035]) (Fig 6).

Fig 6

Overall survival curve within 5 years after nephrectomy in higher and lower PMI.

Regarding the PMI values at the operation and at 5 years after surgery, there were 45 patients (30.8%) in whom the PMI increased by ≥5%, 58 patients (39.7%) whose values changed by -5% to 5%, and 43 patients (29.5%) whose values decreased by ≥5%. Two (4.4%), 6 (10.3%) and 6 (14.0%) patients of the ≥5% increase, -5% to 5% change, and ≥5% decrease groups had recurrence at 5 or more years after surgery, respectively (not significant).

Discussion

In the present study, we assessed the prognostic value of the preoperative PMI in patients with localized RCC who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy and demonstrated that a lower PMI was significantly associated with shorter RFS. The results demonstrated that a lower PMI is an independent risk factor for recurrence in RCC patients after nephrectomy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the impact of PMI on recurrence in patients with RCC.

The PMI, which can be measured relatively simply, is one of the indices used to assess sarcopenia. A low PMI is regarded as a proxy for low muscle volume and our results showed a good correlation between the PMI and PMV. Sarcopenia is defined as a low skeletal muscle volume. Sarcopenia can be considered ‘primary’ (or age-related sarcopenia) when no other cause is evident other than ageing itself, or ‘secondary’ when one or more causes (e.g., activity-related, disease-related and nutrition-related) are evident [12]. Many studies in recent years have shown an association between sarcopenia and a poor prognosis in various cancers [6]. Sarcopenia is closely related to patient frailty and has been reported to be associated with immune functions such as immunosenescence [13].

The UISS and SSIGN scores are two widely validated prognostic scoring models for RCC. The UISS score, which was proposed by the University of California, Los Angeles, is determined according to the tumor stage, Fuhrman grade and ECOG-PS [4]. The SSIGN score, which was proposed by the Mayo Clinic, is determined based on the T stage, nodal disease, tumor size, nuclear grade, presence or absence of tumor necrosis, and the presence or absence of metastasis [5]. We investigated the PMI as a recurrence factor in comparison to these major prognostic factors. The present study suggested that a lower PMI was an independent risk factor for ccRCC after curative surgery. In clear cell renal cancer, cytokine therapy is still a recommended treatment for favorable-risk cancer with lung metastasis. Our findings suggest that a patient’s underlying vitality (or lack thereof) is an important risk factor for recurrence in RCC. It was reported that a shift in balance between the tumor and host was important for disease progression of melanoma [7]. These results may suggest that objective measures of frailty, such as sarcopenia, may be a better method for evaluating the physiological host reserve and overall wellness.

Only one study has investigated the correlation between sarcopenia and the prognosis of localized RCC [14]. They investigated the correlation between the skeletal muscle index and the prognosis of localized RCC and reported that sarcopenia was independently associated with OS and CSS after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. However, it was not associated with PFS. We considered that the fact that our study population was restricted to male patients was the reason for the discrepancy in the outcome. In female patients, changes in hormonal balance, such as menopause, are thought to cause changes in muscle mass, and may not simply reflect the frailty of the patient. As our study population only included men, the PMI strongly reflected patient frailty. Thus, this might have been responsible for the difference in PFS. In contrast, the small number of events, was likely the reason why no difference between OS and PMI was observed in our study.

We further analyzed the patients who had no recurrence for 5 years an additional PMI measurement. Although the result was not statistically significant, the PMI tended to be correlated with subsequent recurrence. The results suggested that the PMI may be a biomarker for predicting recurrence, and further studies, with longer follow-up periods are warranted to investigate the correlation between the PMI and recurrence over time.

The present study was associated with some limitations. It was a non-randomized retrospective study and enrolled a relatively small number of patients. We analyzed the PMI as an indicator of sarcopenia and the PMI was associated with the PMV; however, we did not evaluate whether or not the PMI was correlated with the total skeletal muscle volume. In RCC, the psoas muscle area may not be accurately evaluated due to the influence of the tumor; thus, we only evaluated the area of the major psoas muscle on the contralateral side of the tumor. The PMI cutoff value is dependent on race and the exact cutoff point for each race is still unknown. However, the current study revealed an important finding: a low PMI was an independent predictor for recurrence in male RCC patients. Furthermore, our method is easy to perform, and no additional procedures for measuring the psoas muscle volume are required for most patients undergoing radical nephrectomy. The present study indicated that the PMI, a simple and easily measurable index of sarcopenia, was strongly correlated with short-term recurrence. Due to the small number of patients in the cohort and the retrospective, observational nature of the study, a further prospective study is needed in order to confirm these results.

In conclusion, the present study suggested a significant correlation between the preoperative PMI and postoperative disease recurrence. Thus, the PMI, which is easy to measure on preoperative abdominal CT scans, may improve the accuracy of the predicted prognosis after radical nephrectomy. In ccRCC, in addition to the tumor biology the host biology is an important factor in disease progression. The PMI might serve as a measure of patient frailty and may therefore be useful for prognostic risk stratification.

The differences in the PMI between male and females.

(PPTX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

3 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-21225

A lower psoas muscle volume was associated with a higher rate of recurrence in male clear cell renal cell carcinoma

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kawahara,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Specifically, the analytical aspects of the study raised by the reviewers (especially Reviewer #2) must be addressed.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 17 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Biniam Kidane

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "This study was carried out in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each institution (B160101010)."

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified

(a) whether consent was informed and

(b) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

(c) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. We noticed minor instances of text overlap with the following previous publication(s), which need to be addressed:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10585-018-9883-0

http://www.oncotarget.com/index.php?journal=oncotarget&op=view&page=article&path%5B%5D=22688&path%5B%5D=71664

In your revision please ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I commend the authors on attempting to elucidate the prognostic value of sarcopenia (with a psoas muscle index) in male patients with clear cell renal cell cancer. This is a retrospective cohort study of 316 patients undergoing curative intent surgery for ccRCC. I have appended a few minor suggestions for improving this paper prior to submission below:

Methods

1. Primary outcome and exposure variable needs to be clearly stated in the methods section as per the STROBE statement for reporting observational studies

2. Method of determining correlation between PMV and PMI, including number of patients in this sub-cohort, requires further description in the methods section

3. The authors should attempt to compare the baseline clinical and oncologic metrics of patients with and without recurrent disease. The average PMI appears to be lower in patients with a recurrence, however, it is important to first determine whether this is a result of more advanced disease in this group.

Discussion

1. The authors must be cautious not be overstate their findings. The findings of this retrospective cohort study, with a limited sample size of patients with a clinical recurrence, suggests a correlation between PMI and RFS and is good first step in determining the prognostic value of sarcopenia in RCC. These findings however, require prospective validation.

Reviewer #2: ONE-D-19-21225

This is a retrospective cohort study of men with localized Clear Cell RCC undergoing surgical resection wherein the authors sought to determine the association between sarcopenia and recurrence. The authors utilized psoas muscle index (PMI) as the exposure variable, and showed low PMI was associated with a higher risk of recurrence.

Methods:

1. It does not make sense to exclude Female patients because the rates of recurrence was low or because the psoas muscle index was low. What the was even rate in women? Analysis could be considered separately in women with a different cut off of PMI.

2. The authors need to include the following covariates in the multivariable model: Margin Status, sarcomatoid/rhabdoid histology, receipt of adjuvant therapy (e.g. sunitinib)

3. Please explain why the analysis was restricted to clear cell histology only.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Dhruvin Hirpara

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

24 Oct 2019

Editorial office

PLoS One

Re: PONE-D-19-21225 "A lower psoas muscle volume was associated with a higher rate of recurrence in male clear cell renal cell carcinoma".

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your letter concerning the abovementioned manuscript. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of the reviewers and have revised the manuscript. Our point-by-point revisions are described below.

We would like to thank the Editor and reviewers again for their helpful comments and hope that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in PLoS One.

Respectfully yours,

Takashi Kawahara, M.D., Ph.D.

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation

Yokohama City University Medical Center

4-57 Urafune, Minami-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 2320024, Japan

Phone: +81-45-787-2679

Fax: +81-45-786-5656

E-mail: takashi_tk2001@yahoo.co.jp or kawahara@yokohama-cu.ac.jp

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS

Reviewer 1

I commend the authors on attempting to elucidate the prognostic value of sarcopenia (with a psoas muscle index) in male patients with clear cell renal cell cancer. This is a retrospective cohort study of 316 patients undergoing curative intent surgery for ccRCC. I have appended a few minor suggestions for improving this paper prior to submission below:

Methods

1. Primary outcome and exposure variable needs to be clearly stated in the methods section as per the STROBE statement for reporting observational studies

Response: We have now added information about the exposure variable and primary outcome to the revised manuscript.

2. Method of determining correlation between PMV and PMI, including number of patients in this sub-cohort, requires further description in the methods section

Response: We have now added the patients’ background characteristics to the revised manuscript in the Methods section and added a supplementary table as follows:

3. The authors should attempt to compare the baseline clinical and oncologic metrics of patients with and without recurrent disease. The average PMI appears to be lower in patients with a recurrence, however, it is important to first determine whether this is a result of more advanced disease in this group.

Response: We have now added the following table to the revised manuscript:

Recurrence (n=49) No recurrence (n=267)

n (%) n (%) p

Age ≤60yrs. 13 (26.5%) 112 (41.9%)

>60yrs. 36 (73.5%) 155 (58.1%) 0.042

Site Right 25 (51.0%) 143 (53.6%)

Left 24 (49.0%) 124 (46.4%) 0.744

PS 0 40 (88.9%) 252 (94.7%)

≥1 5 (11.1%) 14 (5.3%) 0.130

Stage 1 & 2 23 (46.9%) 232 (86.9%)

3 26 (53.1%) 35 (13.1%) <0.001

Size ≤4cm 11 (22.4%) 176 (65.9%)

>4cm 38 (77.6%) 91 (34.1%) <0.001

Grade 1 & 2 24 (49.0%) 212 (79.4%)

3 & 4 25 (51.0%) 55 (20.6%) <0.001

PMI High 18 (36.7%) 140 (52.4%)

Low 31 (63.3%) 127 (47.6%) 0.043

Discussion

4. The authors must be cautious not be overstate their findings. The findings of this retrospective cohort study, with a limited sample size of patients with a clinical recurrence, suggests a correlation between PMI and RFS and is good first step in determining the prognostic value of sarcopenia in RCC. These findings however, require prospective validation.

Response: As you mention, this study is a retrospective observational study with a limited number of patients. We have now touched on these limitations in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2

This is a retrospective cohort study of men with localized Clear Cell RCC undergoing surgical resection wherein the authors sought to determine the association between sarcopenia and recurrence. The authors utilized psoas muscle index (PMI) as the exposure variable, and showed low PMI was associated with a higher risk of recurrence.

Methods:

1. It does not make sense to exclude Female patients because the rates of recurrence was low or because the psoas muscle index was low. What the was even rate in women? Analysis could be considered separately in women with a different cut off of PMI

Response: In our previous study, the PMI was lower in women than in men (p<0.001); therefore, to exclude gender differences, we excluded women. In our cohort, only 9 of the 75 women followed-up for more than 1 year showed recurrence (median: 56.4 months). Due to this low number of cases, there was no marked difference in PMI between the non-recurrence and recurrence groups (median: 288.5 vs. 286.6, p=0.463). We have now mentioned this in the revised manuscript and supplementary table 2.

2. The authors need to include the following covariates in the multivariable model: Margin Status, sarcomatoid/rhabdoid histology, receipt of adjuvant therapy (e.g. sunitinib)

Response: In the present cohort, only one case received adjuvant pazopanib treatment. Sarcomatoid was categorized as Grade 4. We therefore performed the multivariate analysis again and obtained the following results:

3. Please explain why the analysis was restricted to clear cell histology only.

Response: We initially evaluated this cohort in order to analyze cytokine efficacy. Cytokine therapy has been confirmed to be effective against melanoma and clear cell carcinoma but not non-clear cell carcinoma. The EAU guideline also recommends interferon therapy for favorable-risk clear cell renal cancer with lung metastasis but not non-clear cell renal cancer. We have now mentioned these points in the revised manuscript.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Thank you for including your ethics statement: "This study was carried out in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each institution (B160101010)."

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified

(a) whether consent was informed and

(b) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

(c) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

3. We noticed minor instances of text overlap with the following previous publication(s), which need to be addressed:

In your revision please ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Response: We have now ensured that the revised manuscript complies with the above.

Submitted filename: RCC_PNI_reply_R1ANC.doc

Click here for additional data file.

3 Dec 2019

A lower psoas muscle volume was associated with a higher rate of recurrence in male clear cell renal cell carcinoma

PONE-D-19-21225R1

Dear Dr. Kawahara,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Biniam Kidane

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for your revisions. The manuscript has been appropriately amended and is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

10 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-21225R1

A lower psoas muscle volume was associated with a higher rate of recurrence in male clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Dear Dr. Kawahara:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Biniam Kidane

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE