4.5 Article

Is sarcopenia a better predictor of complications than body mass index? Sarcopenia and surgical outcomes in patients with rectal cancer

Journal

COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 1372-1378

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/codi.14751

Keywords

Sarcopenia; body mass index; rectal cancer; postoperative outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim Sarcopenia, or a reduction of lean muscle mass, is associated with poorer outcomes in cancer patients. Few previous studies have examined this potentially correctable risk factor in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Method Skeletal muscle mass index was measured retrospectively on initial staging CT scans of patients undergoing chemoradiation followed by radical resection for rectal cancer for the period 2007-2013. Patients were categorized as sarcopenic or nonsarcopenic and differences in terms of demographics, pre-, peri- and postoperative outcomes were examined. Results Forty-seven patients were included; their mean age was 59.3 (36-82) years and 61.7% were men. We considered that 55.2% of men and 44.4% of women were sarcopenic; the overall prevalence of sarcopenia was 51.1%. Age, preoperative haemoglobin and albumin were significantly related to sarcopenia. Body mass index (BMI) and obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) were not associated with sarcopenia. Blood transfusions were more frequent in sarcopenic patients (P = 0.001). Although readmissions and length of stay were not increased, overall postoperative complications were significantly higher in sarcopenic patients (P = 0.03). Neither BMI nor obesity was associated with postoperative complications. Conclusion Sarcopenia was present in over 50% of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at diagnosis. It was associated with a higher incidence of both blood transfusion and postoperative complications. BMI did not correlate with these negative outcomes. Sarcopenia may be a better predictor of surgical outcomes than BMI or obesity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available