4.5 Review

Body composition assessment and sarcopenia in patients with pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

HPB
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 1603-1612

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.05.018

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Numerous studies have suggested an association between sarcopenia in pancreatic cancer and adverse outcomes. This systematic review examines the evidence for the impact of sarcopenia on post-operative complications and survival Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomised and non-randomised studies of sarcopenia in pancreatic cancer. Meta-analyses of intra- and post-operative outcomes were performed (operating time, all complications, major complications, pancreatic fistulae, peri-operative mortality, overall survival). Results: Forty-two studies reported the assessment of body composition in 7619 patients. Methods used to assess body composition in patients with pancreatic cancers were computerized tomography (n = 34), bioelectrical impedance analysis (n = 7), and dual-energy-X-ray-absorptiometry (n = 1). Only 10 studies reported the impact of pre-operative sarcopenia upon post-operative outcomes. Sarcopenia was associated with increased perioperative mortality (OR: 2.40, CI95%:1.19-4.85, p < 0.01) and decreased overall survival by univariable (HR: 1.95, CI95%:1.35-2.81, p < 0.001) and multivariable analysis (HR: 1.78, CI95%:1.54-2.05). Sarcopenia was not significantly associated with all complications (OR: 0.96, CI95%:0.78-1.19) or pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.95, CI95%: 0.59-1.54). Conclusions: Assessment of sarcopenia in pancreatic cancer provides prognostic value but, more importantly, may provide a basis for therapeutic intervention. However, variation in the methods of assessing and reporting sarcopenia in this patient group limits the assessment of post-operative outcomes currently.

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