| Literature DB >> 34249675 |
Sheng-Bo Jin1, Zi-Bin Tian1, Xue-Li Ding1, Ying-Jie Guo1, Tao Mao1, Ya-Nan Yu1, Kai-Xuan Wang2, Xue Jing1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is a poor prognostic factor in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). It can be aggravated by neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) that improves the prognosis of patients with EC. Until now, the impact of preoperative sarcopenia on survival prognosis in patients receiving NAT for EC remains unclear.Entities:
Keywords: esophageal cancer; meta-analysis; neoadjuvant therapy; prognosis; sarcopenia
Year: 2021 PMID: 34249675 PMCID: PMC8260681 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.619592
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Characteristics of the included studies in this meta-analysis.
| Author | Year | Country | Sample size | Sex (female%) | Age | Follow- up (month) | SarcopeniaDefinition | Sarcopenia | Non-sarcopenia | Pre-NACT(%) | Post-NACT (%) | NACT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elliott et al. ( | 2017 | Ireland | 192 | 20.3% | 61.6 ± 9.3 | Median: 26 | man: <52.4 cm2/m2
| 49 | 143 | 15.8% | 30.8% | nCT or nCRT |
| Paireder et al. ( | 2017 | Austria | 130 | 18.5% | 61.4 (30.8–81.0) | Median: 21.5 | man:<55cm2/m2
| 80 | 50 | 42 | 57.7% | nCT or nCRT |
| Panje et al. ( | 2019 | Switzerland | 300 | 12.3% | 61 (36–75) | Median: 48 | man:<43m2/m2(BMI < 25 kg/m2), 53 cm2/m2 (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2); | 239 | 61 | 29.5% | 63.9% | nCRT |
| Saeki et al. ( | 2018 | Japan | 157 | 16.7% | 64.9 | NA | man:<47.27 cm2/m2
| 85 | 72 | 41.4% | 59.2% | nCRT |
| Yip et al. ( | 2014 | UK | 35 | 14% | 63 (34–78) | Median: 24 | man: <52.4 cm2/m2
| 15 | 20 | 26% | 43% | nCRT |
| Ma et al.-1 ( | 2019 | Switzerland | 174 | 8% | 67 (36–91) | Median: 11–38 | man: <55 cm2/m2
| 101 | 73 | 58.0% | 72.4% | nCRT |
| Ma et al.-2 ( | 2019 | Switzerland | 174 | 8% | 67 (36–91) | Median: 11–38 | man: <55 cm2/m2
| 126 | 48 | 58.0% | 72.4% | nCRT |
| Tan et al. ( | 2014 | UK | 89 | 24.7% | 65.8 ± 8.1 | NA | man: < 52.4 cm2/m2
| 44 | 45 | 44.9% | NA | nCT |
| Grotenhuis et al. ( | 2016 | Netherlands | 120 | 27% | 62 (19–78) | Median: 20 | man: <52.4 cm2/m2
| 54 | 66 | NA | 54% | nCRT |
| Huang et al. ( | 2020 | China | 107 | 5.6% | 54.1 ± 7.5 | NA | Man:<52.4 cm2/m2
| 65 | 42 | 60.7% | NA | nCRT |
| Jarvinen et al. ( | 2018 | Finland | 115 | 25.2% | 63 ± 9 | at least 24 months | man: <52.4 cm2/m2
| 92 | 23 | NA | 80% | nCRT |
| Mayanagi et al. ( | 2017 | Japan | 66 | 13.6% | 63.3 ± 8.0 | Median: 39 | man: <52.4 cm2/m2
| NA | NA | NA | NA | nCT |
Main outcomes extracted from the studies included in our meta-analysis.
| First Author | Sarcopenia diagnosis time | Study design | QualityAssessment (NOS) | OS |
| DFS |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI | HR | 95%CI | ||||||
| Elliott | Post-NACT | Cohort study | 7 stars | 1.44 | 0.92–2.24 | 0.11 | 1.40 | 0.90–2.18 | 0.14 |
| Paireder | Post-NACT | Cohort study | 7 stars | 1.31 | 0.79–2.18 | 0.036 | 1.65 | 0.97–2.81 | 0.65 |
| Panje | Post-NACT | Cohort study | 8 stars | 0.68 | 0.21–2.26 | 0.72 | NA | NA | NA |
| Saeki | Pre-NACT | Cohort study | 6 stars | 0.88 | 0.50–1.57 | 0.6875 | NA | NA | NA |
| Yip | Post-NACT | Cohort study | 8 stars | 1.74 | 0.50–6.02 | 0.063 | NA | NA | NA |
| Ma-1 | Pre-NACT | Cohort study | 7 stars | 1.27 | 0.84–1.94 | 0.254 | NA | NA | NA |
| Ma-2 | Post-NACT | Cohort study | 7 stars | 1.92 | 1.18–3.13 | 0.007 | NA | NA | NA |
| Tan | Pre-NACT | Cohort study | 6 stars | 1.42 | 0.71–2.84 | 0.04 | NA | NA | NA |
| Grotenhuis | Pre-NACT | Cohort study | 7 stars | 0.90 | 0.46–1.77 | 0.77 | NA | NA | NA |
| Huang | Pre-NACT | Cohort study | 7 stars | 1.71 | 0.78–3.71 | <0.001 | 1.67 | 1.04–2.71 | 0.02 |
| Jarvinen | Post-NACT | Cohort study | 6 stars | 0.65 | 0.28–1.50 | 0.74 | NA | NA | NA |
| Mayaagi | Pre-NACT | Cohort study | 7 stars | 2.56 | 0.60–10.8 | 0.202 | NA | NA | NA |
nCRT, Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; nCT, Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; OS, Overall survival; DFS, Diseasefreesurvival; HR, Hazard ratio.
Figure 1Methodological flow diagram of the meta-analysis.
Figure 2Forest plot of preoperative diagnosis of sarcopenia in esophageal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for overall survival.
Figure 3Forest plot of preoperative diagnosis of sarcopenia in esophageal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for disease free survival.
Figure 4The difference in the prevalence of sarcopenia before and after neoadjuvant therapy.
Figure 5Subgroup analysis of overall survival based on sarcopenia diagnosis time (A) and age of patients (B). Note: sarcopenia diagnosis time included before neoadjuvant therapy and after neoadjuvant therapy. For age of patients, the cut-off value was 65 years.
Figure 6Funnel plot of the all the included studies for the analysis of overall survival. Begg’s test (P = 0.131) (A) and sensitivity analysis (B).
Figure 7Funnel plot of the included following NACT studies for the analysis of overall survival. Begg’s test (P = 0.851) (A) and sensitivity analysis (B).
Figure 8Funnel plot of the included>65 years of age studies for the analysis of overall survival. Begg’s test (P = 1.000) (A) and sensitivity analysis (B).