4.6 Article

Prognostic significance of CT-determined sarcopenia in patients with advanced gastric cancer

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202700

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HA17C0045]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Sarcopenia, defined as decreased skeletal muscle mass, is prevalent and associated with poor prognosis in various solid tumors. This study aimed to determine the prognostic role of sarcopenia in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Methods This retrospective study consisted of 140 consecutive patients who underwent palliative chemotherapy for AGC. A cross-sectional area of muscle at the level of the third lumbar vertebra (L3) was measured using baseline computed tomography (CT) scans. Sarcopenia was defined as a L3 skeletal muscle index of <= 49 cm(2)/m(2) for men and <= 31 cm(2)/m(2) for women using Korean-specific cutoffs. We compared the overall survival (OS) and clinical characteristics of patients with and without sarcopenia. Results The median age was 67 years, and 133 (95%) patients had metastatic disease. Sarcopenia was present in 67 patients (47.9%) and was significantly related to male sex (p < 0.001) and low body mass index (p = 0.002). Patients with sarcopenia had a significantly shorter OS than those without sarcopenia (median, 6.8 months vs. 10.3 months, respectively; p = 0.033). In the multivariable analysis, sarcopenia was an independent prognostic factor of poor OS (hazard ratio, 1.51, p = 0.029); no response to chemotherapy (p < 0.001), no second-line chemotherapy (p < 0.001), metastatic sites >= 3 (p < 0.001), and low serum albumin level (p = 0.033) were also independent prognostic factors of poor OS. Conclusion Sarcopenia, as determined by baseline CT, can be used to predict poor prognosis in AGC patients treated with palliative chemotherapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available