4.7 Article

Impact of sarcopenia on 1-year mortality in older patients with cancer

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 413-418

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afy212

关键词

sarcopenia; mortality; cancer; old; advanced disease; older people

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives sarcopenia is common especially in hospitalised older populations. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of sarcopenia, defined as low skeletal mass and muscle strength, and its impact on 1-year mortality in older patients with cancer. Methods skeletal muscle mass was estimated using bioelectric impedance analysis and related to height(2) (SMI; Janssen et al. 2002). Grip strength was measured with the JAMAR dynamometer and the cut-offs suggested by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) were applied. One-year mortality was assessed by telephone follow-up and the local cancer death registry. Results of the 439 consecutively recruited cancer patients (60-95 years; 43.5% women), 119 (27.1%) had sarcopenia. Of the patients with sarcopenia, 62 (52.5%) died within 1 year after study entry compared to 108 (35.1%) patients who did not have sarcopenia (P = 0.001). In a stepwise, forward Cox proportional hazards analysis, sarcopenia (HR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.034-2.250; P < 0.05), advanced disease (HR = 1.87; 95% CI: 1.228-2.847; P < 0.05), number of drugs/day (HR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.057-1.170; P < 0.001), tumour diagnosis (overall P < 0.05) and Karnofsky index (HR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.963-0.995; P < 0.05) associated with 1-year mortality risk. The factors sex, age, co-morbidities and involuntary 6-month weight loss 5% were insignificant. Conclusions sarcopenia was present in 27.1% of older patients with cancer and was independently associated with 1-year mortality. The fact that sarcopenia was nearly as predictive for 1-year mortality as an advanced disease stage underlines the importance of preservation of muscle mass and function as a potential target of intervention in older patients with cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据