4.7 Article

Comparison of SARC-F Score among Gastrointestinal Diseases

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 18, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10184099

Keywords

SARC-F; gastrointestinal disease; sarcopenia; predictor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In patients with gastrointestinal diseases, SARC-F scores >= 4 points are associated with factors such as advanced cancer, age, gender, nutritional status, inflammatory condition, and serum albumin level.
SARC-F is a screening tool for sarcopenia. We sought to compare the SARC-F scores of patients with different gastrointestinal diseases (n = 1282 (762 males): upper gastrointestinal disease (UGD, n = 326), lower gastrointestinal disease (LGD, n = 357), biliary and pancreatic disease (BPD, n = 416), and liver disease (LD, n = 183)). Factors associated with SARC-F >= 4 points (highly suspicious of sarcopenia) were also examined. The median age was 71 years. Patients with SARC-F >= 4 points were found in 197 (15.4%). Advanced cancer was found in 339 patients (26.4%). The proportion of SARC-F >= 4 points in groups of UGD, LGD, BPD, and LD were 17.5% (57/326) in UGD, 12.0% (43/357) in LGD, 17.3% (72/416) in BPD, and 13.7% (25/183) in LD, respectively (overall p = 0.1235). In patients with and without advanced cancer, similar tendencies were observed. In the multivariate analysis, age (p < 0.0001), gender (p = 0.0011), serum albumin (p < 0.0001), lymphocyte count (p = 0.0019), C reactive protein (p = 0.0197), and the presence of advanced cancer (p = 0.0424) were significant factors linked to SARC-F >= 4 points. In patients with advanced cancer, SARC-F scores correlated well with their Glasgow prognostic scores. In conclusion, sarcopenia in gastrointestinal diseases may be affected not by disease type (i.e., the primary origin of the disease) but by aging, nutritional condition, inflammatory condition, and cancer burden.

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