Literature DB >> 34797480

Cachexia Versus Sarcopenia in Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Value After Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Large-Scale Prospective Study.

Cheng-Le Zhuang1, Qian-Tong Dong2, Han-Ping Shi3, Feng-Min Zhang1, Xin Luo4, Wen-Bin Wang4, Zhen Yu1, Xiao-Lei Chen5, Su-Lin Wang6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia and cachexia are two predictors of adverse clinical outcomes, but they are partly overlapping. We aimed to compare the characteristics and prognostic value of cachexia and sarcopenia in patients after gastrectomy.
METHODS: From 2014 to 2019, a total of 1215 gastric cancer patients were enrolled. Cachexia and sarcopenia were diagnosed according to the most recent consensus definitions. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Risk factors of survival were evaluated by Cox regression analysis.
RESULTS: Of all patients, 26.5% were diagnosed with cachexia and 19.8% were diagnosed with sarcopenia. Sarcopenia was more prevalent in elderly patients, while cachexia was prone to occur in patients with TMN stage III. Survival curves showed that sarcopenia had adverse effects in patients with TMN stage I and II-III, while cachexia was only associated with poor survival at stages II-III. For the entire cohort, both cachexia and sarcopenia were adverse factors for prognosis. However, for stage I patients, sarcopenia was an independent predictor for overall survival (OS) (HR = 4.939, P < 0.001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 4.256, P < 0.001), but not cachexia; for stage II-III patients, cachexia was an independent predictor for OS (HR = 1.538, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 1.473, P = 0.001), but not sarcopenia.
CONCLUSIONS: Sarcopenia and cachexia have different clinical characteristics and prognostic values. For patients with early stage gastric cancer, detection for sarcopenia was more meaningful than cachexia. However, the prognostic significance of cachexia exceeded sarcopenia in advanced cancer.
© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34797480     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-11084-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  23 in total

1.  ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients.

Authors:  Jann Arends; Patrick Bachmann; Vickie Baracos; Nicole Barthelemy; Hartmut Bertz; Federico Bozzetti; Ken Fearon; Elisabeth Hütterer; Elizabeth Isenring; Stein Kaasa; Zeljko Krznaric; Barry Laird; Maria Larsson; Alessandro Laviano; Stefan Mühlebach; Maurizio Muscaritoli; Line Oldervoll; Paula Ravasco; Tora Solheim; Florian Strasser; Marian de van der Schueren; Jean-Charles Preiser
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 7.324

Review 2.  Cancer Cachexia: Cause, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Authors:  Todd W Mattox
Journal:  Nutr Clin Pract       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 3.080

Review 3.  Cancer cachexia, mechanism and treatment.

Authors:  Tomoyoshi Aoyagi; Krista P Terracina; Ali Raza; Hisahiro Matsubara; Kazuaki Takabe
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-04-15

4.  Definition of cancer cachexia: effect of weight loss, reduced food intake, and systemic inflammation on functional status and prognosis.

Authors:  Kenneth C Fearon; Anne C Voss; Deborah S Hustead
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.045

Review 5.  Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus.

Authors:  Kenneth Fearon; Florian Strasser; Stefan D Anker; Ingvar Bosaeus; Eduardo Bruera; Robin L Fainsinger; Aminah Jatoi; Charles Loprinzi; Neil MacDonald; Giovanni Mantovani; Mellar Davis; Maurizio Muscaritoli; Faith Ottery; Lukas Radbruch; Paula Ravasco; Declan Walsh; Andrew Wilcock; Stein Kaasa; Vickie E Baracos
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-02-04       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 6.  Cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome: current issues in research and management.

Authors:  Akio Inui
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Nutritional status, cachexia and survival in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Different assessment criteria for nutritional status provide unequal results.

Authors:  Lene Thoresen; Gunilla Frykholm; Stian Lydersen; Hege Ulveland; Vickie Baracos; Carla M M Prado; Laura Birdsell; Ursula Falkmer
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 7.324

8.  Effects of enobosarm on muscle wasting and physical function in patients with cancer: a double-blind, randomised controlled phase 2 trial.

Authors:  Adrian S Dobs; Ralph V Boccia; Christopher C Croot; Nashat Y Gabrail; James T Dalton; Michael L Hancock; Mary A Johnston; Mitchell S Steiner
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Low body mass index and sarcopenia associated with dose-limiting toxicity of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  S Antoun; V E Baracos; L Birdsell; B Escudier; M B Sawyer
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 10.  Understanding cachexia as a cancer metabolism syndrome.

Authors:  P E Porporato
Journal:  Oncogenesis       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 7.485

View more
  1 in total

1.  The Association Between Neoadjuvant Therapy and Pathological Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer Patients After Resection: Prognostic Significance of Microscopic Venous Invasion.

Authors:  Hidemasa Kubo; Katsuhisa Ohgi; Teiichi Sugiura; Ryo Ashida; Mihoko Yamada; Shimpei Otsuka; Kentaro Yamazaki; Akiko Todaka; Keiko Sasaki; Katsuhiko Uesaka
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-04-03       Impact factor: 5.344

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.