4.7 Article

Muscle wasting assessment tools for prostate cancer

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-08501-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated muscle mass and function in Mexican men with prostate cancer and found that muscle wasting is highly prevalent and presumably associated with aging rather than cancer and its treatment. Due to limited availability of equipment, simplistic techniques such as left-arm handgrip dynamometry can be used as surrogate measurements for muscle wasting. The study also developed a model to identify elderly patients with prostate cancer at risk of muscle depletion and impairment.
Prostate cancer and its treatment may induce muscle wasting. Body composition and muscle functionality are rarely assessed in patients with prostate cancer from developing countries due to the limited availability of high-quality equipment for routine diagnosis. This cross-sectional study evaluated the association between several simplistic techniques for assessing muscle mass and function with a more complex standard of reference for muscle wasting among Mexican men with prostate cancer. Muscle wasting was highly prevalent, yet it was presumably associated with aging rather than cancer and its treatment itself. The restricted availability of specific equipment in clinical settings with technological limitations supports using unsophisticated techniques as surrogate measurements for muscle wasting. The left-arm handgrip dynamometry displayed the highest correlation with the standard of reference and exhibited an acceptable predicted probability for muscle estimation. Combining several simplistic techniques may be preferable. We also developed and internally validated a manageable model that helps to identify elderly patients with prostate cancer at risk of muscle depletion and impairment. These findings promote the early recognition and treatment of muscle wasting alterations occurring among older adults with prostate 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