Next Article in Journal
Immune-Proteome Profiling in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma Tumor Diagnostic Tissue
Previous Article in Journal
IL-10 Rescues CLL Survival through Repolarization of Inflammatory Nurse-like Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/cancers14010010
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Prognostic Impact of the SARC-F Score in Gastrointestinal Advanced Cancers

by
Masahiro Matsui
1,
Hiroki Nishikawa
1,2,*,
Masahiro Goto
1,
Akira Asai
1,
Kosuke Ushiro
1,
Takeshi Ogura
1,
Toshihisa Takeuchi
1,
Shiro Nakamura
1,
Kazuki Kakimoto
1,
Takako Miyazaki
1,2,
Shinya Fukunishi
1,2,
Hideko Ohama
1,
Keisuke Yokohama
1,
Hidetaka Yasuoka
1 and
Kazuhide Higuchi
1
1
The Second Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Takatsuki 569-8686, Japan
2
The Premier Departmental Research of Medicine, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Takatsuki 569-8686, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(1), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010010
Submission received: 27 November 2021 / Revised: 17 December 2021 / Accepted: 18 December 2021 / Published: 21 December 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

There have been few reports with regard to the relevance between the SARC-F score and the prognosis in patients with gastrointestinal advanced cancers, and we aimed to elucidate these issues (n = 421, median age = 73 years). During the follow-up period, 145 patients (34.4%) died. The 1-year cumulative overall survival rate in patients with SARC-F ≥ 4 (recommended cutoff point, n = 103) and SARC-F < 4 (n = 318) was 33.9% and 61.6% (p < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis for the overall survival, total lymphocyte count ≥ 1081/μL (p = 0.0014), the SARC-F score ≥ 4 (p = 0.0096), Glasgow prognostic score 1 (p = 0.0147) and 2 (p < 0.0001), ECOG-PS 2 (p < 0.0001), and 3 (p < 0.0001) and 4 (p < 0.0001) were independent predictors. In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on the prognostic value of the SARC-F score, the sensitivity/specificity was 0.59/0.70, and the best cutoff point of the SARC-F score was two. The SARC-F score appears to be useful in patients with gastrointestinal advanced malignancies.

Abstract

We sought to elucidate the prognostic impact of the SARC-F score among patients with gastrointestinal advanced malignancies (n = 421). A SARC-F score ≥ 4 was judged to have a strong suspicion for sarcopenia. In patients with ECOG-PS 4 (n = 43), 3 (n = 61), and 0–2 (n = 317), 42 (97.7%), 53 (86.9%) and 8 (2.5%) had the SARC-F score ≥ 4. During the follow-up period, 145 patients (34.4%) died. All deaths were cancer-related. The 1-year cumulative overall survival (OS) rate in patients with SARC-F ≥ 4 (n = 103) and SARC-F < 4 (n = 318) was 33.9% and 61.6% (p < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis for the OS, total lymphocyte count ≥ 1081/μL (p = 0.0014), the SARC-F score ≥ 4 (p = 0.0096), Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) 1 (p = 0.0147, GPS 0 as a standard), GPS 2 (p < 0.0001, GPS 0 as a standard), ECOG-PS 2 (p < 0.0001, ECOG-PS 0 as a standard), ECOG-PS 3 (p < 0.0001, ECOG-PS 0 as a standard), and ECOG-PS 4 (p < 0.0001, ECOG-PS 0 as a standard) were independent predictors. In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on the prognostic value of the SARC-F score, the sensitivity/specificity was 0.59/0.70, and best cutoff point of the SARC-F score was two. In conclusion, the SARC-F score is useful in patients with gastrointestinal advanced malignancies.

1. Introduction

Sarcopenia is characterized by generalized muscle mass loss and muscle functional decline, leading to physical frailty, cachexia, and mortality [1,2]. Malnutrition, reticence, advanced malignancy burden, and persistent inflammatory condition often identified in patients with gastrointestinal disorders are typical clinical characteristics associated with sarcopenia [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Patients with advanced cancer are prone to muscle protein loss due to muscle proteolysis-inducing factors and inflammatory cytokines released by the cancer cells [10]. In addition, psychological anxiety and side effects of treatment for the underlying malignancies can lead to a loss of appetite, and numerous previous studies have reported that sarcopenia is an adverse predictor in patients with advanced cancer [11,12,13]. Cancer cachexia is a metabolic abnormality with a systemic inflammatory response, and it is associated with increased catabolism, such as insulin resistance and increased lipid degradation, as well as increased skeletal muscle degradation [10]. In Japan, anamorelin, a ghrelin (appetite stimulating peptide) receptor agonist, is currently the only drug approved for cancer cachexia [14].
SARC-F (strength (S), assistance walking (A), rising from a chair (R), climbing stairs (C), and falls (F)) is a self-reported questionnaire consisting of five queries with the aim of screening for sarcopenia [15,16]. Subjects are asked to answer to the five questions on a scale of 0 to 2, and the total score is calculated [15]. A SARC-F score ≥ 4 is judged to have a strong suspicion for sarcopenia [15]. The SARC-F score can be linked to physical functional reserve and activity of daily life [17,18]. The SARC-F is recommended for use as an initial screening method for sarcopenia in the current international guidelines [19,20], whereas its lower sensitivity for sarcopenia may be a problem [21,22,23]. Therefore, attempts have been made to combine the SARC-F score with age, body mass index (BMI), and calf-circumference to increase sensitivity for sarcopenia [24,25,26]. The use of SARC-calf for sarcopenia screening is also recommended in the current Asian guidelines [19].
To our knowledge, however, there have been few reports with regard to the relevance between the SARC-F score and prognosis in patients with gastrointestinal advanced cancers [27]. Such research questions may deserve to be clarified, which urged us to perform the present analysis.

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Patients and Our Study

In the Second Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University (OMPU) hospital, sarcopenia risk has been assessed by the SARC-F. As a rule, all hospitalized patients were asked to answer the SARC-F questionnaire upon admission. Between May 2020 and September 2021, 421 advanced malignancy patients with SARC-F scores can be found in our database. Stage III or more severe cancer was defined as advanced cancer. In each patient, the most appropriate therapy was chosen through discussion with gastroenterologists, surgeons, and oncologists based on the current guidelines in each cancer. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS). First, the OS rate was compared according to the SARC-F score. Next, univariate and multivariate analyses for the OS were performed. Next, survival analysis was performed according to the disease primary site. Finally, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for the SARC-F based on the prognosis score was performed.

2.2. Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS)

GPS is calculated by the two serum markers: serum albumin level (reference value = 3.5 g/dL) and C reactive protein (CRP) level (reference value = 1.0 mg/dL), and it is a frequently used prognostic system in patients with advanced malignancies [28,29]. GPS 0 was determined as patients with a serum albumin level > 3.5 g/dL and CRP < 1.0 mg/dL, GPS 2 those with serum albumin level < 3.5 g/dL and CRP >1.0 mg/dL. The remaining subjects were classified as GSP 1.

2.3. Statistics

The relationship between two variables was assessed by Pearson correlation coefficient (r). For the analysis of the significance of prognostic parameters, continuous parameters were dichotomized at the median value. Kaplan-Meier method was used for the cumulative OS rate and the log-rank test was used for testing. Parameters with a p value < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazard model). The follow-up period was defined as the period from the date of SARC-F score acquisition to the date of confirmed death or last confirmed survival. ROC analysis based on the prognosis was also done for the area under the ROC (AUC) of the SARC-F score, and the cutoff was adopted as the point where the sum of sensitivity and specificity is maximized. In the data presentation, median value (interquartile range (IQR)) was used. A p = 0.05 was set at the significant level by the JMP ver. 15 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Baseline Features

The baseline features for all study subjects (n = 421, 272 men and 149 women, median (IQR) age = 73 (66–79) years) are shown in Table 1. The median (IQR) BMI was 21.0 (18.8–23.6) kg/m2. In terms of the disease’s primary site, colorectal cancer was most frequently seen (93 cases, 22.1%), followed by pancreatic cancer (78 cases, 18.5%), esophageal cancer (69 cases, 16.4%), gastric cancer (63 cases, 15.0%), biliary tract cancer (62 cases, 14.7%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, 55 cases, 13.1%). The median SARC-F score was 1. The SARC-F score 0 was found in 198 cases (47.0%), 1 in 53 (12.6%), 2 in 38 (9.0%), 3 in 29 (6.9%), and ≥4 (highly possible for sarcopenia) in 103 (24.5%). GPS 0 was found in 177 cases (42.0%), GPS 1 in 91 cases (21.6%), and GPS 2 in 153 cases (36.3%). ECOG-PS 0 was found in 201 cases (47.7%), 1 in 78 (18.5%), 2 in 38 (9.0%), 3 in 61 (14.5%), and 4 in 43 (10.2%).

3.2. The Cumulative OS Rate According to the SARC-F Score and GPS

The median follow-up period in this study was 0.4 years. During the follow-up period, 145 patients (34.4%) died. All deaths were cancer-related deaths. The 1-year cumulative OS rate for all cases was 55.0%. The 1-year cumulative OS rate in patients with SARC-F ≥ 4 (n = 103) and SARC-F < 4 (n = 318) was 33.9% and 61.6%, respectively (p < 0.0001, Figure 1A). The 1-year cumulative OS rate in patients with GPS 0 (n = 177), GPS 1 (n = 91), and GPS 2 (n = 153) was 79.8%, 47.0%, and 28.2%, respectively (overall p < 0.0001, Figure 1B).

3.3. The Relationship between the SARC-F Score and ECOG-PS in the Whole Cohort

In the whole cohort, the SARC-F score significantly correlated with EOCG-PS (r = 0.89, p < 0.0001, Figure 2A). Out of patients with ECOG-PS 4 (n = 43), 42 (97.7%) had a SARC-F score ≥ 4. Out of patients with ECOG-PS 3 (n = 61), 53 (86.9%) had a SARC-F score ≥ 4. Out of patients with ECOG-PS 0-2 (n = 317), 8 (2.5%) had a SARC-F score ≥ 4.
In the whole cohort, the SARC-F score significantly correlated with GPS (r = 0.32, p < 0.0001, Figure 2B). Out of patients with GPS 2 (n = 153), 57 (37.3%) had a SARC-F score ≥ 4. Out of patients with GPS 0 or 1 (n = 268), 46 (17.2%) had a SARC-F score ≥ 4.

3.4. Uni- and Multivariate Analysis of the OS

In the univariate analysis of the OS, an age ≥ 73 years (p = 0.0072), a SARC-F score ≥ 4 (p < 0.0001), Hb ≥ 11.9 g/dL (p < 0.0001), total lymphocyte count ≥ 1081/μL (p < 0.0001), GPS (p < 0.0001), and ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) were significant factors (Table 2). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis of the OS, total lymphocyte count ≥ 1081/μL (p = 0.0014), a SARC-F score ≥ 4 (p = 0.0096), GPS 1 (p = 0.0147, GPS 0 as a standard), GPS 2 (p < 0.0001, GPS 0 as a standard), ECOG-PS 2 (p < 0.0001, ECOG-PS 0 as a standard), ECOG-PS 3 (p < 0.0001, ECOG-PS 0 as a standard), and ECOG-PS 4 (p < 0.0001, ECOG-PS 0 as a standard) were independent predictors of the OS. Odds ratios (ORs) in each factor are shown in Table 3.

3.5. The Cumulative OS Rate Stratified by the SARC-F Score According to the Primary Origin

Out of patients with esophageal cancer (n = 69), the 1-year cumulative OS rate in patients with the SARC-F ≥ 4 (n = 18) and < 4 (n = 51) was 59.3% and 71.5%, respectively (p = 0.0152, Figure 3A). Out of patients with gastric cancer (n = 63), the 1-year cumulative OS rate in patients with the SARC-F ≥ 4 (n = 19) and <4 (n = 44) was 0% and 62.1%, respectively (p < 0.0001, Figure 3B). Out of patients with biliary tract cancer (n = 62), the 1-year cumulative OS rate in patients with the SARC-F ≥ 4 (n = 18) and <4 (n = 44) was 10.8% and 49.3%, respectively (p = 0.0032, Figure 3C). Out of patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 78), the 1-year cumulative OS rate in patients with the SARC-F ≥ 4 (n = 20) and <4 (n = 58) was not reached and 43.7%, respectively (p = 0.030, Figure 3D). Out of patients with HCC (n = 55), the 1-year cumulative OS rate in patients with the SARC-F ≥ 4 (n = 12) and <4 (n = 43) was 76.2% and 66.9%, respectively (p = 0.6423, Figure 3E). Out of patients with colorectal cancer (n = 93), the 1-year cumulative OS rate in patients with the SARC-F ≥ 4 (n = 15) and <4 (n = 78) was not reached and 62.4%, respectively (p = 0.0002, Figure 3F).

3.6. ROC Analysis on the Prognstic Impact of the SARC-F Score

In the ROC analysis on the prognostic impact of the SARC-F score, the AUC was 0.66 (Figure 4A). The sensitivity/specificity was 0.59/0.70, and the optimal cutoff point of the SARC-F score was 2 (Figure 4A). When the cutoff point of the SARC-F score was changed to 2, the 1-year cumulative OS rate in patients with the SARC-F score ≥ 2 (n = 132) and <2 (n = 289) was 31.6% and 65.0%, respectively (p < 0.0001, Figure 4B).

4. Discussion

In Japan, due to the spread of the COVID-19 infection, there is a concern that the number of patients receiving cancer screening will decrease and the number of cancer patients who are found in an advanced stage will increase. Although the number of new COVID-19 infections has been decreasing due to the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines, there is a concern that people, especially the elderly, may be reluctant to receive medical check-ups in a hospital. Thus, an easier screening method without an invasive procedure for the medical check-up may be ideal. As described above, the recommendation in the current international guidelines involves the use of the SARC-F score as an initial screening tool for sarcopenia [12,19,20]. However, to our knowledge, few reports can be found regarding the SARC-F score and the prognosis in patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. If the prognostic impact of SARC-F is clarified, it will be easy to estimate the prognosis of patients with advanced cancer. This is especially significant in facilities with difficulties for assessing muscle mass. We thus conducted the current analysis. We believe that the current results are worth reporting.
In our results, a SARC-F score ≥ 4 was an independent factor for the OS, and in all subgroup analyses except for HCC, patients with a SARC-F score ≥ 4 had significantly worse survival than those with a SARC-F score < 4. These results denoted that the SARC-F is a helpful prognostic scoring system in patients with gastrointestinal advanced malignancies. The reason for the non-significant difference of the OS between the patients with the SARC-F score ≥ 4 and <4 in HCC patients may be attributed to the distribution of the GPS (GPS 0/GPS 1/GPS 2: 5 (41.7%)/5 (41.7%)/2 (16.7%) in the SARC-F score ≥ 4, and 18 (41.9%)/13 (30.2%)/12 (27.9%) in the SARC-F score < 4). A previous meta-analysis demonstrated the prognostic impact of the GPS in HCC patients [30].
In our data, there was a strong correlation between the SARC-F score and ECOG-PS (r = 0.89). In patients with PS, 4 (n = 43), 42 (97.7%) had a SARC-F score ≥ 4. In patients with PS 3 (n = 61), 53 (86.9%) had the SARC-F score ≥ 4. While in patients with PS 0–2 (n = 317), only 8 (2.5%) had a SARC-F score ≥ 4. The SARC-F is a questionnaire involving 5 queries as mentioned in the introduction section. The ECOG-PS indicates the degree of limitation in the patient’s daily life. The SARC-F can be an alternative for ECOG-PS. While in our multivariate analysis, total lymphocyte count was an independent predictor as well as EOCG-PS, GPS, and the SARC-F score. The total lymphocyte count reflects immunological function [31]. Exercise can ameliorate sarcopenia through the improvement of immunological function, and thus, exercise can be recommended in patients with advanced cancer [32,33,34]. GPS is a well-established prognostic marker among patients with advanced malignancies [28,29,35]. The ORs for the OS of GPS 1 and GPS 2 in this study were 1.953 (p = 0.0147, GPS 0 as a reference) and 3.460 (p < 0.0001, GPS 0 as a reference), which were consistent with previous reports [28,29,35]. Although BMI was not significant for the OS in our results, body weight loss was an important factor associated with cancer cachexia [10]. In our cohort, 86 patients (20.4%) had BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 (underweight). In such patients, appropriate nutritional intervention may be required to improve prognosis.
In the ROC analysis based on the prognosis for the SARC-F score, AUC was 0.66, the sensitivity/specificity was 0.59/0.70, and the optimal cutoff point of the SARC-F score was 2. When the cutoff point of the SARC-F score was set at 4 (recommended cutoff point), the sensitivity/specificity was 0.38/0.83, indicating a significant decrease in the sensitivity. As described above, a relatively lower sensitivity of the SARC-F score for sarcopenia may be a problem, which is identical to our data [21,22,23]. Hanai et al. reported in their large cohort with chronic liver disease that a SARC-F score = 1 demonstrated a stronger discrimination capability for selecting sarcopenia than a SARC-F score = 4, with an AUC of 0.68, and with the sensitivity/specificity of 0.65/0.68 [36]. In view of these, the cutoff point of the SARC-F score should be carefully reviewed.
We should mention several limitations to the current analysis. First, the study involved a single-center retrospective observational study design. Second, the exact number of patients with a definite diagnosis of sarcopenia was unclear in our data. Third, our study cohort was highly heterogeneous, including a broad spectrum of gastrointestinal advanced malignancies, also creating bias. Fourth, the SARC-F score can vary depending on the patient status, such as malnutrition and dehydration. The patient’s prognosis should therefore be evaluated comprehensively, taking into account factors other than the SARC-F score. Finally, the relatively short follow-up period (median, 0.4 years) in our study should also be mentioned, but the number of deaths was 145 in this study, which can be appropriate for survival analysis.

5. Conclusions

The SARC-F score in patients with gastrointestinal advanced malignancies efficiently reflects survival. Appropriate therapeutic interventions should be considered in patients with gastrointestinal advanced malignancies with a higher SARC-F score.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and H.N.; methodology, M.M. and H.N.; software, M.M. and H.N.; validation, M.M. and H.N.; formal analysis, M.M. and H.N.; investigation, M.M. and H.N.; resources, M.M., H.N., M.G., A.A., K.U., T.O., T.T., S.N., K.K., T.M., S.F., H.O., K.Y., H.Y., K.H.; data curation, M.M., H.N., M.G., A.A., K.U., T.O., T.T., S.N., K.K., T.M., S.F., H.O., K.Y., H.Y., K.H.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and H.N.; writing—review and editing, M.M., H.N., M.G., A.A., K.U., T.O., T.T., S.N., K.K., T.M., S.F., H.O., K.Y., H.Y., K.H.; visualization, A.A. and K.H.; supervision, A.A. and K.H.; project administration, M.M. and H.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the OMPU hospital (protocol code: 2021-109, and date of approval: 20 November 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of this study.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions eg privacy or ethical. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to personal information.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully thank all medical staff in our department for their help with data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare.

Abbreviations

BMIbody mass index
OMPUOsaka medical and pharmaceutical university
OSoverall survival
ROCReceiver operating characteristic
GPSGlasgow Prognostic Score
CRPC reactive protein
AUCarea under the ROC
IQRinterquartile range
HCChepatocellular carcinoma
ORodds ratio

References

  1. Nishikawa, H.; Fukunishi, S.; Asai, A.; Yokohama, K.; Nishiguchi, S.; Higuchi, K. Pathophysiology and mechanisms of primary sarcopenia (Review). Int. J. Mol. Med. 2021, 48, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ganapathy, A.; Nieves, J.W. Nutrition and Sarcopenia—What Do We Know? Nutrients 2020, 12, 1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chhetri, J.K.; de Souto Barreto, P.; Fougère, B.; Rolland, Y.; Vellas, B.; Cesari, M. Chronic inflammation and sarcopenia: A regenerative cell therapy perspective. Exp. Gerontol. 2018, 103, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sieber, C.C. Malnutrition and sarcopenia. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2019, 31, 793–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Dunne, R.F.; Loh, K.P.; Williams, G.R.; Jatoi, A.; Mustian, K.M.; Mohile, S.G. Cachexia and Sarcopenia in Older Adults with Cancer: A Comprehensive Review. Cancers 2019, 11, 1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Nishikawa, H.; Shiraki, M.; Hiramatsu, A.; Moriya, K.; Hino, K.; Nishiguchi, S. Japan Society of Hepatology guidelines for sarcopenia in liver disease (1st edition): Recommendation from the working group for creation of sarcopenia assessment criteria. Hepatol. Res. 2016, 46, 951–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Balestrieri, P.; Ribolsi, M.; Guarino, M.P.L.; Emerenziani, S.; Altomare, A.; Cicala, M. Nutritional Aspects in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Nutrients 2020, 12, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Shaw, C. Management of diet in gastrointestinal cancer. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2021, 80, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, H.; Yang, R.; Xu, J.; Fang, K.; Abdelrahim, M.; Chang, L. Sarcopenia as a predictor of postoperative risk of complications, mortality and length of stay following gastrointestinal oncological surgery. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2021, 103, 630–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nishikawa, H.; Goto, M.; Fukunishi, S.; Asai, A.; Nishiguchi, S.; Higuchi, K. Cancer Cachexia: Its Mechanism and Clinical Significance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Deng, H.Y.; Chen, Z.J.; Qiu, X.M.; Zhu, D.X.; Tang, X.J.; Zhou, Q. Sarcopenia and prognosis of advanced cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition 2021, 90, 111345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, F.; Chi, J.; Liu, Y.; Fan, L.; Hu, K. Impact of preoperative sarcopenia on postoperative complications and prognosis of gastric cancer resection: A meta-analysis of cohort studies. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2021, 98, 104534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Trejo-Avila, M.; Bozada-Gutiérrez, K.; Valenzuela-Salazar, C.; Herrera-Esquivel, J.; Moreno-Portillo, M. Sarcopenia predicts worse postoperative outcomes and decreased survival rates in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Colorectal. Dis. 2021, 36, 1077–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wakabayashi, H.; Arai, H.; Inui, A. The regulatory approval of anamorelin for treatment of cachexia in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer in Japan: Facts and numbers. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2021, 12, 14–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Malmstrom, T.K.; Miller, D.K.; Simonsick, E.M.; Ferrucci, L.; Morley, J.E. SARC-F: A symptom score to predict persons with sarcopenia at risk for poor functional outcomes. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2016, 7, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ida, S.; Kaneko, R.; Murata, K. SARC-F for Screening of Sarcopenia among Older Adults: A Meta-analysis of Screening Test Accuracy. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2018, 19, 685–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, S.; Kim, M.; Won, C.W. Validation of the Korean Version of the SARC-F Questionnaire to Assess Sarcopenia: Korean Frailty and Aging Cohort Study. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2018, 19, 40–45.e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tanaka, S.; Kamiya, K.; Hamazaki, N.; Matsuzawa, R.; Nozaki, K.; Maekawa, E.; Noda, C.; Yamaoka-Tojo, M.; Matsunaga, A.; Masuda, T.; et al. Utility of SARC-F for Assessing Physical Function in Elderly Patients with Cardiovascular Disease. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2017, 18, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, L.K.; Woo, J.; Assantachai, P.; Auyeung, T.W.; Chou, M.Y.; Iijima, K.; Jang, H.C.; Kang, L.; Kim, M.; Kim, S.; et al. Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia: 2019 Consensus Update on Sarcopenia Diagnosis and Treatment. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2020, 21, 300–307.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Cruz-Jentoft, A.J.; Bahat, G.; Bauer, J.; Boirie, Y.; Bruyère, O.; Cederholm, T.; Cooper, C.; Landi, F.; Rolland, Y.; Sayer, A.A.; et al. Sarcopenia: Revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 2019, 48, 16–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Voelker, S.N.; Michalopoulos, N.; Maier, A.B.; Reijnierse, E.M. Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the SARC-F and Its Modified Versions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2021, 22, 1864–1876.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lu, J.L.; Ding, L.Y.; Xu, Q.; Zhu, S.Q.; Xu, X.Y.; Hua, H.X.; Chen, L.; Xu, H. Screening Accuracy of SARC-F for Sarcopenia in the Elderly: A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2021, 25, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barbosa-Silva, T.G.; Menezes, A.M.; Bielemann, R.M.; Malmstrom, T.K.; Gonzalez, M.C.; Grupo de Estudos em Composição Corporal e Nutrição (COCONUT). Enhancing SARC-F: Improving Sarcopenia Screening in the Clinical Practice. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2016, 17, 1136–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kurita, N.; Wakita, T.; Kamitani, T.; Wada, O.; Mizuno, K. SARC-F Validation and SARC-F+EBM Derivation in Musculoskeletal Disease: The SPSS-OK Study. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2019, 23, 732–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yang, M.; Hu, X.; Xie, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, J.; Lin, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Han, Z.; Zhang, D.; et al. Screening Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: SARC-F vs SARC-F Combined With Calf Circumference (SARC-CalF). J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2018, 19, e1–e277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fu, X.; Tian, Z.; Thapa, S.; Sun, H.; Wen, S.; Xiong, H.; Yu, S. Comparing SARC-F with SARC-CalF for screening sarcopenia in advanced cancer patients. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 39, 3337–3345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Behne, T.E.G.; Dock-Nasimento, D.B.; Sierra, J.C.; Rodrigues, H.H.N.P.; Palauro, M.L.; Andreo, F.O.; Silva-The, M.B.; DE-Aguilar-Nascimento, J.E. Association between preoperative potential sarcopenia and survival of cancer patients undergoing major surgical procedures. Rev. Col. Bras Cir. 2020, 47, e20202528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Hui, D.; Paiva, C.E.; Del Fabbro, E.G.; Steer, C.; Naberhuis, J.; van de Wetering, M.; Fernández-Ortega, P.; Morita, T.; Suh, S.Y.; Bruera, E.; et al. Prognostication in advanced cancer: Update and directions for future research. Support Care Cancer 2019, 27, 1973–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Simmons, C.P.L.; McMillan, D.C.; McWilliams, K.; Sande, T.A.; Fearon, K.C.; Tuck, S.; Fallon, M.T.; Laird, B.J. Prognostic Tools in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2017, 53, 962–970.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Li, M.X.; Bi, X.Y.; Li, Z.Y.; Huang, Z.; Han, Y.; Zhou, J.G.; Zhao, J.J.; Zhang, Y.F.; Zhao, H.; Cai, J.Q. Prognostic Role of Glasgow Prognostic Score in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicine 2015, 94, e2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lei, R.; Mohan, C. Immunological Biomarkers of COVID-19. Crit. Rev. Immunol. 2020, 40, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Suzuki, K. Chronic Inflammation as an Immunological Abnormality and Effectiveness of Exercise. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Hollingworth, T.W.; Oke, S.M.; Patel, H.; Smith, T.R. Getting to grips with sarcopenia: Recent advances and practical management for the gastroenterologist. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2020, 12, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Reginster, J.Y.; Beaudart, C.; Al-Daghri, N.; Avouac, B.; Bauer, J.; Bere, N.; Bruyère, O.; Cerreta, F.; Cesari, M.; Rosa, M.M.; et al. Update on the ESCEO recommendation for the conduct of clinical trials for drugs aiming at the treatment of sarcopenia in older adults. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2021, 33, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Tuomisto, A.E.; Mäkinen, M.J.; Väyrynen, J.P. Systemic inflammation in colorectal cancer: Underlying factors, effects, and prognostic significance. World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 4383–4404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hanai, T.; Hiraoka, A.; Shiraki, M.; Sugimoto, R.; Taniki, N.; Hiramatsu, A.; Nakamoto, N.; Iwasa, M.; Chayama, K.; Shimizu, M. Utility of the SARC-F Questionnaire for Sarcopenia Screening in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study in Japan. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 14 00010 g001 550
Figure 1. (A) Kaplan-Meier curves in patients with the SARC-F score ≥ 4 (n = 103) and <4 (n = 318). (B) Kaplan-Meier curves in patients with the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) 0 (n = 177), GPS 1 (n = 91), and GPS 2 (n = 153).
Figure 1. (A) Kaplan-Meier curves in patients with the SARC-F score ≥ 4 (n = 103) and <4 (n = 318). (B) Kaplan-Meier curves in patients with the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) 0 (n = 177), GPS 1 (n = 91), and GPS 2 (n = 153).
Cancers 14 00010 g001
Cancers 14 00010 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) The relevance between the SARC-F score and the ECOG-PS. (B) The relevance between the SARC-F score and the Glasgow prognostic score.
Figure 2. (A) The relevance between the SARC-F score and the ECOG-PS. (B) The relevance between the SARC-F score and the Glasgow prognostic score.
Cancers 14 00010 g002
Cancers 14 00010 g003 550
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier curves in patients with a SARC-F score ≥ 4 and <4 according to the disease primary site. (A) Esophageal cancer (n = 69). (B) Gastric cancer (n = 63). (C) Biliary tract cancer (n = 62). (D) Pancreatic cancer (n = 78). (E) Hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 55). (F) Colorectal cancer (n = 93).
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier curves in patients with a SARC-F score ≥ 4 and <4 according to the disease primary site. (A) Esophageal cancer (n = 69). (B) Gastric cancer (n = 63). (C) Biliary tract cancer (n = 62). (D) Pancreatic cancer (n = 78). (E) Hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 55). (F) Colorectal cancer (n = 93).
Cancers 14 00010 g003
Cancers 14 00010 g004 550
Figure 4. (A) Receiver operating characteristics curve based on the prognosis for the SARC-F score. Area under the ROC was 0.66. The sensitivity was 0.59, the specificity was 0.70 and optimal cutoff point of the SARC-F score was 2. (B) Kaplan-Meier curves in patients with a SARC-F score ≥ 2 (n = 132) and <2 (n = 289).
Figure 4. (A) Receiver operating characteristics curve based on the prognosis for the SARC-F score. Area under the ROC was 0.66. The sensitivity was 0.59, the specificity was 0.70 and optimal cutoff point of the SARC-F score was 2. (B) Kaplan-Meier curves in patients with a SARC-F score ≥ 2 (n = 132) and <2 (n = 289).
Cancers 14 00010 g004
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
VariablesNumber or Median (IQR)
Age (years)73 (66, 79)
Gender, male/female272/149
BMI (kg/m2)21.0 (18.8, 23.6)
Hb (g/dL)11.9 (10.4, 13.3)
Serum albumin (g/dL)3.5 (3.0, 3.9)
CRP (mg/dL)0.75 (0.19, 4.39)
GPS, 0/1/2177/91/153
Total lymphocyte count (/μL)1081 (767, 1490)
ALT (IU/l)22 (13, 52.5)
Platelet count × 104/mm321.4 (15.7, 28.0)
eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2)68 (55, 82)
ECOG-PS, 0/1/2/3/4201/78/38/61/43
SARC-F score, 0/1/2/3/4 or more198/53/38/29/103
Breakdown of advanced cancers (number (%))
Esophageal cancer69 (16.4%)
Gastric cancer63 (15.0%)
Biliary tract cancer62 (14.7%)
Pancreatic cancer78 (18.5%)
Hepatocellular carcinoma55 (13.1%)
Colorectal cancer93 (22.1%)
Small intestine cancer1 (0.2%)
BMI; body mass index, CRP; C reactive protein, GPS; Glasgow prognostic score, ALT; alanine aminotransferase, eGFR; estimated glomerular filtration rate, IQR; interquartile range.
Table
Table 2. Univariate analyses of factors linked to the overall survival.
Table 2. Univariate analyses of factors linked to the overall survival.
Variablesnp Value
Age ≥ 73 years, yes/no216/2050.0072
Gender, male/female272/1490.0626
BMI ≥ 21 kg/m2, yes/no210/205 *0.1478
Hb ≥ 11.9 g/dL, yes/no212/209<0.0001
Platelet count ≥ 21.4 × 104/mm3, yes/no211/2100.7554
Total lymphocyte count ≥1081/μL, yes/no211/210<0.0001
ALT ≥ 22 IU/l, yes/no216/2050.7103
eGFR ≥ 68 mL/min/1.73m2, yes/no213/2080.0910
SARC-F score ≥ 4, yes/no103/318<0.0001
GPS, 0/1/2177/91/153<0.0001
ECOG-PS, 0/1/2/3/4201/78/38/61/43<0.0001
BMI; body mass index, ALT; alanine aminotransferase, eGFR; estimated glomerular filtration rate, GPS; Glasgow prognostic score, *; missing data, n = 6.
Table
Table 3. Multivariate analyses of factors associated with the overall survival.
Table 3. Multivariate analyses of factors associated with the overall survival.
VariablesOR95% CIp Value
Age ≥ 73 years1.0850.763–1.5440.6491
Hb ≥ 11.9 g/dL0.8300.568–1.2110.3324
Total lymphocyte count ≥ 1081/μL0.5370.367–0.7870.0014
SARC-F score ≥ 42.8991.295–6.4890.0096
Glasgow prognostic score
0 Reference
11.9531.141–3.3430.0147
23.4602.103–5.691<0.0001
ECOG-PS
0 Reference
11.4890.860–2.5800.1555
24.6222.691–7.940<0.0001
36.2352.663–14.601<0.0001
418.827.298–48.534<0.0001
OR; odds ratio, CI; confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matsui, M.; Nishikawa, H.; Goto, M.; Asai, A.; Ushiro, K.; Ogura, T.; Takeuchi, T.; Nakamura, S.; Kakimoto, K.; Miyazaki, T.; et al. Prognostic Impact of the SARC-F Score in Gastrointestinal Advanced Cancers. Cancers 2022, 14, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010010

AMA Style

Matsui M, Nishikawa H, Goto M, Asai A, Ushiro K, Ogura T, Takeuchi T, Nakamura S, Kakimoto K, Miyazaki T, et al. Prognostic Impact of the SARC-F Score in Gastrointestinal Advanced Cancers. Cancers. 2022; 14(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matsui, Masahiro, Hiroki Nishikawa, Masahiro Goto, Akira Asai, Kosuke Ushiro, Takeshi Ogura, Toshihisa Takeuchi, Shiro Nakamura, Kazuki Kakimoto, Takako Miyazaki, and et al. 2022. "Prognostic Impact of the SARC-F Score in Gastrointestinal Advanced Cancers" Cancers 14, no. 1: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010010

APA Style

Matsui, M., Nishikawa, H., Goto, M., Asai, A., Ushiro, K., Ogura, T., Takeuchi, T., Nakamura, S., Kakimoto, K., Miyazaki, T., Fukunishi, S., Ohama, H., Yokohama, K., Yasuoka, H., & Higuchi, K. (2022). Prognostic Impact of the SARC-F Score in Gastrointestinal Advanced Cancers. Cancers, 14(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010010

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop