4.7 Article

Visceral Adiposity and Sarcopenic Visceral Obesity are Associated with Poor Prognosis After Resection of Pancreatic Cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages 3732-3740

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-017-6077-y

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Visceral fat accumulation and muscle depletion have been identified as poor prognostic factors for various cancers. However, the significance of visceral adiposity and sarcopenic visceral obesity on outcomes after resection of pancreatic cancer remains unclear. A retrospective analysis of 301 patients who underwent resection for localized pancreatic cancer between 2004 and 2015 was performed. The extent of visceral adiposity [visceral to subcutaneous adipose tissue area ratio (VSR)] and visceral obesity [visceral fat area (VFA)] were measured on preoperative computed tomography images, together with skeletal muscle index (SMI) and muscle attenuation (MA). The impacts of these body composition parameters on outcomes after pancreatic resection were investigated. The overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates in patients with high VSR were significantly lower than those in patients with low VSR (P = 0.001, P = 0.007, respectively). There were no differences in OS and RFS between high VFA and low VFA group; however, when analyzed together with sarcopenic factors, OS and RFS rates of the patients with sarcopenic visceral obesity were significantly lower compared with those of the others. Multivariate analyses revealed that high VSR was an independent risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.58, P = 0.009) and recurrence (HR 1.41, P = 0.026) together with low SMI, low MA, high CA19-9, microvascular invasion, and nodal metastasis. Visceral adiposity and sarcopenic visceral obesity, as well as low muscle mass and quality, were closely associated with mortality and recurrence after resection of pancreatic cancer.

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