4.6 Article

Correlation between the SARC-F Score and Hydration Status in Older Gastrointestinal Cancer Outpatients

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 748-750

Publisher

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12603-021-1619-1

Keywords

Sarcopenia; SARC-F; older; cancer; muscle mass

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In elderly gastrointestinal cancer outpatients, there is a positive but low correlation between the SARC-F score and the ECW/TBW ratio, suggesting the potential loss of muscle function due to extracellular fluid accumulation.
Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the association between the extracellular water/total body weight ratio (ECW/TBW) and SARC-F scores among elderly gastrointestinal cancer patients. Measurements A cross-sectional study was performed with 57 older male patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Muscle function was assessed using the SARC-F questionnaire. Total body water (TBW) and extracellular water (ECW) were determined using bioelectrical impedance analysis, and fluid retention was assessed as the ratio of ECW to TBW (ECW/TBW). Pearson's correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between the SARC-F score and ECW/TBW, TBW and water intake. Results were considered significant at p < 0.05. Results Of the 57 older patients evaluated (65 +/- 7 y), 13 +/- 8% presented severe weight loss in the last 6 months. The median SARC-F score was 1.0 (0-10), and only four patients had SARC-F >= 4, which indicates the risk of sarcopenia. There was a positive correlation between the SARC-F score and ECW/TBW (r = 0.26, p = 0.02). However, no correlation was found between daily water intake or TBW and the SARC-F score. Conclusion In older gastrointestinal cancer outpatients, we found a positive, albeit low, correlation between the SARC-F score and the ECW/TBW ratio. This outcome indicates the likelihood of muscle function loss due to accumulation of extracellular fluid.

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