4.7 Review

Body composition and sarcopenia: The next-generation of personalized oncology and pharmacology?

Journal

PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 196, Issue -, Pages 135-159

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2018.12.003

Keywords

Cachexia; Chemotherapy; Sarcopenic obesity; Targeted therapy; Toxicity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Body composition has gained increasing attention in oncology in recent years due to fact that sarcopenia has been revealed to be a strong prognostic indicator for survival across multiple stages and cancer types and a predictive factor for toxicity and surgery complications. Accumulating evidence over the last decade has unraveled the pharmacology of sarcopenia. Lean body mass may be more relevant to define drug dosing than the classical body surface area or flat-fixed dosing in patients with cancer. Since sarcopenia has a major impact on patient survival and quality of life, therapeutic interventions aiming at reducing muscle loss have been developed and are being prospectively evaluated in randomized controlled trials. It is now acknowledged that this supportive care dimension of oncological management is essential to ensure the success of any anticancer treatment. The field of sarcopenia and body composition in cancer is developing quickly, with (i) the newly identified concept of sarcopenic obesity defined as a specific pathophysiological entity, (ii) unsolved issues regarding the best evaluation modalities and cut-off for definition of sarcopenia on imaging, (iii) first results from clinical trials evaluating physical activity, and (iv) emerging body-composition-tailored drug administration schemes. In this context, we propose a comprehensive review providing a panoramic approach of the clinical, pharmacological and therapeutic implications of sarcopenia and body composition in oncology. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available