4.6 Article

Rapid Depletion of Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue during Sorafenib Treatment Predicts Poor Survival in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

CANCERS
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers12071795

关键词

body composition; hepatocellular carcinoma; sorafenib; prognostic factor; skeletal muscle; subcutaneous fat mass

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to assess the annualized changes in body composition, including skeletal muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) before, during, and after sorafenib treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This retrospective study evaluated 61 HCC patients treated with sorafenib. Annualized changes (Delta; cm(2)/m(2)/year) in skeletal muscle index (SMI), SAT index (SATI), and VAT index (VATI), which were defined as the cross-sectional areas (cm(2)) of those areas on computed tomography normalized by the square of one's height (m(2)), before ((pre)), during ((during)), and after ((post)) sorafenib treatment, were calculated. Patients within the 20th percentile cutoffs for these indices were classified into the rapid depletion group and the effects of these values on survival were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional-hazards model. Annualized depletion rates of SMI (Delta SMIpre: -3.5, Delta SMIduring: -3.5, Delta SMIpost: -8.0) and VATI (Delta VATI(pre): -3.2, Delta VATI(during): -2.8, Delta VATI(post): -15.1) accelerated after the cancellation of sorafenib, whereas that of SATI (Delta SATI(pre): -4.8, Delta SATI(during); -7.6, Delta SATI(post); -8.0) had already accelerated during sorafenib treatment. Patients with rapid depletion of Delta SATI(during)experienced significantly worse survival rates (p< 0.001), and it was an independent predictor of survival (p= 0.009), together with therapeutic effect (p< 0.001). Rapid depletion of SAT during sorafenib treatment can be used to predict survival in patients with HCC.

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

4.6
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