Next Article in Journal
p53-Dependent Cytoprotective Mechanisms behind Resistance to Chemo-Radiotherapeutic Agents Used in Cancer Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
Association of Circulating Tumor Cells, Megakaryocytes and a High Immune-Inflammatory Environment in Metastatic Breast Cancer
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Association between Computed Tomography-Determined Loss of Muscle Mass and Impaired Three-Month Survival in Frail Older Adults with Cancer

1
Department of Radiology, Tampere University Hospital, Kuntokatu 2, 33520 Tampere, Finland
2
Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Arvo Ylpön Katu 34, 33520 Tampere, Finland
3
Centre of Geriatrics, Tampere University Hospital, Kuntokatu 2, 33520 Tampere, Finland
4
Gerontology Research Center (GEREC), Tampere University, Arvo Ylpön Katu 34, 33520 Tampere, Finland
5
Department of Oncology, Tays Cancer Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Teiskontie 35, 33520 Tampere, Finland
6
Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Kalevantie 5, 33014 Tampere, Finland
7
Department of Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00290 Helsinki, Finland
8
Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Tema Cancer, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Eugeniavägen 3, 17176 Solna, Sweden
9
Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1, 17177 Solna, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cancers 2023, 15(13), 3398; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133398
Submission received: 13 April 2023 / Revised: 6 June 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published: 28 June 2023

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

A large proportion of older adults are not fit for oncological treatments due to frailty and comorbidities. To aid in the decision-making of whom to provide active oncological treatment to, we used G8-screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment in patients at risk of frailty. We studied the added value of muscle measurement with computed tomography (CT) at the third lumbar vertebra level in these potentially frail ≥ 75-year-olds. In 58 patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors, a higher 3-month mortality rate and poorer nutritional status and functioning were noted among those with low muscle mass, independent of other predictive factors. Most patients with low muscle mass were allocated to best supportive care only. A poorer 2-year survival among 21 patients treated with curative intent was noted in those with low muscle mass. Muscle mass assessment alongside geriatric assessment can thus help oncologists identify patients at increased risk of severe toxicities and with little benefit from oncological treatments.

Abstract

As patients with solid (non-hematological) cancers and a life expectancy of <3 months rarely benefit from oncological treatment, we examined whether the CT-determined loss of muscle mass is associated with an impaired 3-month overall survival (OS) in frail ≥75-year-old patients with cancer. Frailty was assessed with G8-screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment in older adults at risk of frailty. The L3-level skeletal (SMI) and psoas (PMI) muscle indexes were determined from routine CT scans. Established and optimized SMI and PMI cut-offs were used. In the non-curative treatment group (n = 58), 3-month OS rates for normal and low SMI were 95% and 64% (HR 9.28; 95% CI 1.2–71) and for PMI 88%, and 60%, respectively (HR 4.10; 1.3–13). A Cox multivariable 3-month OS model showed an HR of 10.7 (1.0–110) for low SMI, 2.34 (0.6–9.8) for ECOG performance status 3–4, 2.11 (0.5–8.6) for clinical frailty scale 5–9, and 0.57 (0.1–2.8) for males. The 24-month OS rates in the curative intent group (n = 21) were 91% and 38% for the normal and low SMI groups, respectively. In conclusion, CT-determined low muscle mass is independently associated with an impaired 3-month OS and, alongside geriatric assessment, could aid in oncological versus best supportive care decision-making in frail patients with non-curable cancers.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

As the population ages, the number of older adults with cancer increases [1]. Older adults with cancer present unique challenges to cancer care providers, such as an increased number of comorbidities, frailty, loss of physical and mental function, malnutrition, and muscle-wasting conditions (e.g., sarcopenia and cachexia) [2]. To achieve optimal treatment outcomes and adherence, the oncologist should take into account patients’ physical, mental, and sociopsychological resources, as well as tumor-related factors and treatment intent. Indeed, patients with a solid tumor and a short life expectancy (i.e., less than 3-month overall survival (OS)) probably do not benefit from oncological treatments and are often excluded from oncological studies [3,4].
Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for older adults with cancer is regarded as the gold standard in the identification of frailty and other vulnerability-associated conditions [5]. Indeed, compared to usual care, CGA-guided oncological treatment has been shown to reduce treatment-related toxicities [6,7] and treatment discontinuations [8]. However, CGA does not directly determine which patients could undergo oncological treatment, and there is heterogeneous evidence that CGA’s implementation improves survival outcomes [5,6,7,9]. Further tools are needed to supplement CGA to enable a better characterization of the phenomena underlying frailty and augment the assessment of treatability.
Sarcopenia is a syndrome often seen in older adults with cancer and in patients with other serious debilitating diseases. The syndrome is characterized by the progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength [10]. Cachexia is a more complex condition with both “objective” components (e.g., inadequate food intake, weight loss, inactivity, loss of muscle mass, and metabolic derangements that induce catabolism) and “subjective” components (e.g., anorexia, early satiety, taste alterations, chronic nausea, distress, fatigue, and loss of concentration) and affects approximately half of patients with advanced cancers [11]. The diagnosis of sarcopenia requires low muscle strength combined with low muscle mass or quality [11], whereas the diagnosis of cachexia requires that phenotypical criteria (weight or muscle loss) and etiological criteria (systemic inflammation, reduced food intake) are met [11]. Sarcopenia (with skeletal muscle loss as a surrogate endpoint) in patients with cancer is associated with a decreased survival rate [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], an increased risk of oncological treatment toxicities [14,20,21,22], and an impaired health-related quality of life [23]. As diagnosing muscle-wasting conditions early is important for optimized treatment planning, complementary means to detect these conditions are of great interest.
Computed tomography (CT) is an accurate imaging modality for body composition analysis and enables the identification of skeletal muscle-wasting conditions [24]. The opportunistic use of CT scans to quantify the amount of muscle tissue based on Hounsfield units is often possible because patients with cancer are imaged with CT as part of their diagnostic work-up and during treatment to assess treatment response [24]. The most used level in body composition analysis is the third lumbar vertebra, from where the area of all the axially visible muscles or individual muscles (e.g., the psoas muscles) are measured [24]. Analogously to the body mass index (BMI), muscle areas are often normalized by the patient’s squared height resulting in muscle indexes, such as the skeletal and psoas muscle indexes (SMI and PMI, respectively). However, the role of these parameters remains poorly studied in older adult patients with cancer, especially those who are frail, for whom there are no established SMI or PMI cut-off values.
The primary aim of this study was to examine the association between CT-determined low muscle mass with published and optimized cut-offs and 3-month OS rates. The secondary aim was to investigate whether low muscle mass offers additional predictive value for treatment decisions in combination with oncological and geriatric evaluations in frail older adults with cancer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Cohort

The study cohort was collected retrospectively among patients referred to an oncology outpatient clinic for consideration of oncological treatment at the Cancer Center at Tampere University Hospital, Finland, from September 2018 to January 2021. According to protocol, an oncology nurse called the referred patients aged ≥75 years or their relatives to conduct G8-screening to identify patients at risk of frailty. The G8-screening tool consists of eight questions with a maximum of 17 points, with at-risk patients having ≤14 points [25]. Patients at risk of frailty were referred to a geriatrician for CGA before their appointment with an oncologist. Patients who received more than 14 points in the G8-screening underwent routine treatment without CGA and were not included in this study (flowchart in Figure 1).
The inclusion criteria for the patients were as follows: the patient had an abnormal G8-screening result and underwent geriatric and oncological evaluation at the Geriatric Oncological Unit; the patient’s clinical information was available; and the patient had an appropriate CT scan. The scan had to fulfill the following criteria: the midpoint of the third lumbar vertebra was scanned in a manner that allowed body composition analysis; the scan was performed no more than 2 months prior to CGA according to local standard practice [26] (whereas a maximum of 1 month is frequently used in study populations [27]); and the scan was performed before starting any systemic oncological treatment.

2.2. Ethics Statement

The study was approved by the local institutional review board at Tampere University Hospital (study numbers R19628S and R20503S). Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent are not needed in single-institution register-based studies in Finland.

2.3. Body Composition Analysis

Appropriate CT studies were collected from the hospital’s Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (Commit; RIS IDS7 Radiology Desktop, Sectra AB, Linköping, Sweden). One reader (A.T.) performed body composition analysis with the 3D Slicer software (version 4.11) [28]. A single axial slice was used from the midpoint of the third lumbar vertebra level, determined using the sagittal and coronal images. One patient with incomplete abdominal muscle scanning was excluded from SMI analysis. Slice volumes were divided by slice thicknesses (0.45–3.00 mm) to calculate areas. The Hounsfield unit range for skeletal muscle tissue was set to −29 to 150 [29] and used irrespective of contrast agent use and scan phase. Manual correction of the tissues was performed according to morphology and/or Hounsfield unit variability. SMI and PMI values were calculated by dividing the whole skeletal muscle and psoas areas, respectively, with the patient’s squared height (Figure 2).

2.4. Clinical Data Acquisition

Patients’ age, sex, dates for the CT scan, visits to the geriatrician and the oncologist, and date of death if deceased were collected from the hospital’s electronic patient records. The primary tumor site and extent (local vs. locally advanced/metastatic) were recorded. The Eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS) was recorded at the oncologist’s appointment [30]; the FRAIL scale [31], clinical frailty scale [32], activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living [33], hand-grip strength, and sit-to-stand tests [34] were recorded by the geriatrician at the CGA. Nutritional status was assessed with the mini nutritional assessment-short form [35] and with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) classification [36]. For GLIM, phenotypic criteria included weight loss of >5% per 6 months, BMI < 22 kg/m2, or impaired hand-grip strength with cut-offs as in [34]; we excluded reduced muscle mass as a criterion because there were no quantitative muscle mass records in the patient database. Etiologic criteria were serum albumin < 35 g/L or C-reactive protein > 10 mg/L [37]. Hemoglobin < 110 g/L, creatinine > 100 µmol/L for men and >90 µmol/L for women, and albumin < 30 g/L were also recorded [38].
The patients were categorized into curative and non-curative intent treatment groups. Patients in the non-curative treatment group were further subdivided into the palliative chemotherapy group and the best supportive care only group (BSC).

2.5. Statistical Analyses

The association between CT-determined low muscle mass and 3-month OS was studied with Kaplan–Meier estimation and Cox regression models. The 3-month OS was calculated from the oncologist’s visit until the end of the 3-month follow-up or death. The cut-offs for low muscle mass were optimized stepwise. We first used SMI [12,39,40,41,42] and PMI [43,44] cut-off values from the literature to examine their performance in our study cohort. As these cut-offs were not optimized for frail older adults with cancer, we also tested sex-specific medians and receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-determined optimized cut-offs. To optimize the SMI and PMI cut-off values, Youden’s indexes (sensitivity + specificity − 1) were calculated, and the highest Youden’s index was chosen, giving sensitivity and specificity equal weight.
Patient demographics are presented as absolute values and percentages and as medians with ranges or interquartile ranges (IQRs), and muscle index parameters are presented as means with standard deviations. Logistic regression and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to examine differences between the muscle indexes and patient characteristics. The OS for the whole follow-up period was calculated from the oncologist’s visit until the end of January 2022 or death. Established factors that predict OS (ECOG PS, clinical frailty scale) and sex due to the difference in muscle mass distributions were included in multivariable analyses.
All p-values were two-sided and considered significant when p ≤ 0.05, without adjustment for multiple analyses. Data were analyzed with SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, 2020, Version 27.0.0.1, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Demographics

A total of 80 patients (43 men and 37 women) were included with a median age of 80 (range 75–91) years (Figure 1). The median time between the CT scan and the oncologist visit was 21 (range 0–61) days. The cohort consisted of patients with upper GI, lower GI, and other cancers (Table 1, with details in Table S1).

3.2. Initiated Treatments

All patients treated with curative intent (n = 22; 28%) underwent surgical resection. At the time of the oncologist’s appointment 20/22 (91%) had been operated and were considered for adjuvant chemotherapy and 2/22 (9%) were considered for neoadjuvant treatment. All patients in the curative intent treatment group receiving curative oncological treatments (n = 10) were given chemotherapy.
Treatment intent was non-curative in 58 (73%) patients; 31 received palliative oncological treatment and 27 BSC only. Of the 58 patients in non-curative care, 45 had metastatic disease and 13 had locally advanced disease ineligible for curative surgery because of disease extent, frailty, or poor functional status. The palliative oncological treatments (n = 31) that were given were chemotherapy (n = 18), chemotherapy and bevacizumab (n = 3), hormonal treatment (n = 2), hormonal treatment with denosumab or radionucleotides (n = 4), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n = 3), and immuno-oncologic treatment (n = 1). Six patients were given radiotherapy in combination with other treatments.
Having a lower GI cancer was associated with curative treatment intent but there were no other statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the curative and non-curative treatment groups (Table 1 and Table S1).

3.3. Muscle Index Cut-Offs

The mean SMI values for men and women were 43.3 ± 6.1 cm2/m2 and 35.7 ± 4.6 cm2/m2, and mean PMI values were 5.30 ± 1.04 cm2/m2 and 4.34 ± 1.04 cm2/m2, respectively.
ROC analyses were performed for SMI (n = 79) and PMI (n = 80) to predict 3-month OS rates (Figure 3). The optimized ROC cut-off values for SMI were 48.8 cm2/m2 and 33.4 cm2/m2, and for PMI 5.05 cm2/m2 and 4.06 cm2/m2 for men and women, respectively, as obtained by maximizing Youden’s indexes.
Median SMI cut-offs for men and women were 42.4 cm2/m2 and 35.0 cm2/m2, respectively; median PMI cut-offs were 5.06 cm2/m2 and 4.15 cm2/m2, respectively.
The optimized, median, and literature-referred SMI and PMI cut-offs and their univariate and multivariable associations with 3-month OS are presented in Table 2 [12,39,40,41,42,43,44] and demographic comparisons of the studies in Table S2.

3.4. Associations between Low Muscle Mass, Oncological Treatments, and Patient Characteristics

The associations between oncological treatments, clinical characteristics, and low muscle mass based on optimized SMI and PMI cut-offs are presented in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively, and further details are presented in Tables S3 and S4, respectively.
A low SMI did not associate with ECOG PS, FRAIL scale, clinical frailty scale, or other measures of functional status, whereas low PMI was associated with ECOG PS 3–4 (p = 0.047), clinical frailty scale 5–9 (p = 0.006), and an impaired hand-grip strength (p = 0.012).
Significant differences were noted in the measures of malnutrition. In the non-curative group, malnutrition according to GLIM was noted in 76% and 45% of patients with low and normal SMI, respectively (p = 0.027), and in the curative intent group according to the mini nutritional assessment-short form in 78% and 20%, respectively (p = 0.019). In the non-curative group, malnourishment according to GLIM was present in 82% and 52% of patients in the low and normal PMI groups, respectively (p = 0.029).

3.5. Three-Month Survival Analyses

The 3-month OS rates were 64% and 95% in the low and normal SMI groups, respectively, among the non-curatively treated patients with an HR of 9.28 (95% CI 1.2–71.0; Figure 4A). Respective 3-month OS rates were 60% and 88% in the low and normal PMI groups with an HR of 4.10 (95% CI 1.3–13.1; Figure 4B). Most deaths (13/14, 93%) occurred in the BSC group, with one death (due to stroke) out of 31 (3%) among oncologically treated patients. No patients in the curative treatment intent group died within 3 months.

3.6. Univariate and Multivariable Analyses for 3-Month Overall Survival in the Non-Curative Treatment Group

In the univariate analyses, low SMI, low PMI, and clinical frailty scale 5–9 were associated with impaired 3-month OS, whereas sex and ECOG PS 3–4 were not (Table 5).
The 3-month OS models included predefined predictors for cancer treatment outcome (low muscle mass, ECOG PS, and clinical frailty scale) and sex due to differences in muscle mass distributions. There were no significant interactions between SMI and ECOG PS (p = 0.954), SMI and clinical frailty scale (p = 0.929), or ECOG and clinical frailty scale (p = 0.947). Low SMI (HR 10.65 (95% CI 1.0–110)) remained statistically significant in the multivariable model (Table 5). None of the factors in the PMI model remained significant after the adjustment (Table 5).
The SMI [12,39,40,41,42] and PMI cut-offs [43,44] from the literature, in addition to our own median cut-offs, were included separately in the multivariable models that included low muscle mass, sex, ECOG PS, and clinical frailty scale. Of these, only the study median PMI cut-off was significant in the univariate analysis; however, none were independently associated with an impaired 3-month OS in multivariable analysis (Table 2).

3.7. Long-Term Overall Survival

The median reverse Kaplan–Meier follow-up was 29 months (IQR 24–38) with no patients lost to follow-up.
Patients in the non-curative group showed no statistically significant long-term OS associations between the low and normal SMI groups (HR 1.62 (95% CI 0.9–2.9)) with 24-month OS rates of 10% and 23%, respectively (Figure 5A). Low and normal PMI showed crossing of the curves after 12 months in the non-curative group (n = 58) (Figure 5B).
The 24-month OS rates in the palliative chemotherapy group (n = 31) were 23% and 31% in the low and normal SMI groups, respectively, with an HR of 1.19 (95% CI 0.53–2.7). Respective 24-month OS rates were 63% and 15% in the low and normal PMI groups.
Patients in the curative treatment group with low SMI had an impaired long-term survival (HR 4.16 (95% CI 1.1–17)) with 24-month OS rates of 38% and 91% in the low and normal SMI groups, respectively (Figure 5C), whereas PMI curves crossed after 24 months (Figure 5D).

4. Discussion

Our study suggests that low SMI is a predictor of worse 3-month OS independent of oncological and geriatric performance scores (ECOG PS and clinical frailty scale, respectively) in frail older adults with cancer. The study enrolled only patients at risk of frailty based on G8-screening (≤14/17 points) who underwent full CGA; fit older adults not at risk of frailty (>14/17 points) were excluded. Low PMI was predictive of 3-month survival in the univariate analysis but did not retain its statistical significance in the multivariable model. Low SMI was also associated with impaired long-term OS in the curative intent treatment group. Most patients allocated to BSC or follow-up (i.e., did not receive active oncological treatment) had low SMI. CT-determined low muscle mass could thus aid in the assessment of the treatability of these patients.
Several SMI and PMI cut-offs for low muscle mass in different patient populations have been proposed in the literature (Table 2). We noted that previously published SMI cut-offs by Prado et al. [12], Martin et al. [39], Baracos et al. [40], van Vledder et al. [41], and Camus et al. [42] classified most of our cohort’s older frail patients as having low muscle mass, and these classifications did not predict 3-month OS. In the studies by Prado et al. and Martin et al., the patients were significantly younger and had higher mean BMI values and notably higher SMI values than the patients in the current study. Patients in these two studies had a variety of primary tumors with stage IV disease in 38 and 52% of patients, respectively. The lower cut-off values by van Vledder et al. did not predict 3-month OS, probably due to the selection of fit patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal liver metastases, unlike our patient material, which excluded the fit. In the study by Camus et al., the patients’ ages were closer to the current cohort but with higher mean SMI values, probably reflecting the study population consisting of patients with lymphoma that mostly did not affect the gastrointestinal canal and thus their nutritional status. Similarly, the PMI cut-offs from surgical scenarios by Amini et al. [43] and Joglekar et al. [44] did not predict survival, but they classified patients into low and normal muscle mass groups more evenly than the cited SMI cut-offs from the literature. Indeed, PMI has been used mostly in surgical scenarios rather than oncological ones, and the cut-offs may not be applicable due to the differences in patient cohorts. In all the abovementioned studies, patients’ median ages were lower, and frailty was not reported (Table S2). Similar to this study, two of five studies assessing SMI included patients with a variety of solid tumors. Oncological therapy was assessed in five of the seven studies, as in our study, and surgical treatment in three studies. We clearly had the highest proportion of patients with locally advanced non-resectable, or metastatic tumors. To our knowledge, there are no frail older adult patient cohorts in the literature with which to compare our cut-offs. Larger cohorts are needed to validate our proposed cut-off values.
Our findings align with previous research showing that CT-based body composition analysis is a promising method for identifying patients with muscle-wasting conditions and impaired OS in many cancers [16,24,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Our results showed a non-significant association between low SMI and impaired long-term survival in the non-curative intent group. The association was statistically significant only in the curative intent treatment group that underwent surgical resection with or without neo-/adjuvant treatment. However, the baseline measurement of PMI seemed to lose its predictive value after 1 year in both instances.
BMI as a measure of body composition was not associated with OS or muscle mass in the current cohort. High BMI may be linked with worse cancer survival outcomes, as shown in two large meta-analyses [51,52], and in a large meta-analysis of early-stage breast cancer, obesity (BMI > 30) was found to be associated with a 75% and 34% mortality increase in premenopausal and postmenopausal women, respectively [53]. However, in a study of 41,015 patients with colorectal cancer, BMI values from 25 to 29 and from 30 to 35 were associated with better OS rates than normal BMI in adults ≥ 70 years of age (HRs of 0.77 (0.73–0.81) and 0.77 (0.69–0.87), respectively) with similar HRs for cancer-specific survival [54]. Similarly, in 471 adults ≥ 80 years of age undergoing a curative resection of stage I–III colorectal cancer, BMI ≥ 23 was found to be associated with better cancer-specific survival (0.54 (0.29–0.94) and OS (0.45 (0.30–0.65)) than BMI < 23 in multivariable analysis [55]. In addition, high BMI and better survival outcomes were reported in a meta-analysis of patients receiving immuno-oncological treatment [56]. The mechanism for the association between BMI and cancer mortality is unclear, but it has been suggested that a higher BMI may interfere with the effective delivery of oncological treatments [57] and contribute to the development of fatal comorbidities [58,59]. However, it is feasible that a higher BMI is reflective of higher energy and nutrient reserves [60] and is thus protective against cancer cachexia and mortality. The use of BMI alone to assess body composition in older adults is not advisable, considering the conflicting evidence, as it does not measure the highly variable proportions of lean or adipose tissue mass.
In line with our results, low muscle mass has previously been shown to be associated with a higher 3-month mortality in patients undergoing cancer surgery (e.g., for bladder cancer [61], abdominal emergencies in older adults [62], glioblastoma [63], liver metastases [64], and hepatocellular carcinoma [65]).
In the current study, only low PMI was associated with frailty as defined by clinical frailty scale points ranging between 5 and 9, ECOG PS 3 and 4, and impaired hand-grip strength. The psoas muscles are important in maintaining posture and are probably preserved in physically active patients (ECOG PS 0–2 and clinical frailty scale 0–4). It is unclear whether inactivity is reflected equally in reduced psoas or total muscle mass, but SMI is regarded as the gold standard surrogate for whole body muscle mass [20,24]. The finding regarding the SMI’s association with OS, but not with these measures of functional status, suggests that SMI probably reflects some aspects of fitness not readily detected at the geriatrician’s or oncologist’s appointment.
Low muscle mass with both muscle indexes was associated with impaired nutritional status, according to the GLIM classification. Many patients suffered from advanced diseases with inflammatory components (elevated CRP in 36% and hypoalbuminemia in 21%), which contribute to cachexia-related muscle loss (such as in pancreatic cancer). In addition, aging-related sarcopenia and frailty can cause malnutrition through several other mechanisms, including less activity, lower energy needs, food intake, and appetite, impaired cognition, and disrupted social functioning [66]. Previous surgery and fasting can also cause low muscle mass. The etiology of low muscle mass in this cohort remains unclear and is probably multifactorial.
The opportunistic use of CT-based body composition analysis is feasible and can complement geriatricians and oncologists in treatment decision-making. Our results suggest that low SMI is associated with treatment allocation to BSC, as 78% of these patients had low SMI. Based on our results, SMI would be preferred over PMI for the assessment of muscle mass in frail older adults, as only SMI remained significant in the multivariable 3-month OS model. We hypothesize that psoas measurements may be more susceptible to inter-reader and inter-study variability due to the smaller muscle area than the whole muscle area; hypothetically, small measurement errors could result in a comparatively large variability in PMI values.
The major limitation of this study is the small patient sample with varying types of cancer, stages, and treatment intents. There is thus a clear need for validation of the results in larger, homogenous patient cohorts. Another limitation (or strength) is the exclusion of fit older adults and the inclusion of only at-risk-of-frailty and CGA-assessed older adults. This affects long-term OS estimates, as these frail patients have a relatively short life expectancy, even without cancer [67,68]; patients in non-curative treatment have a less-than-12-month life expectancy due to a high unmet need in most cases, and the treatment intent necessitates the separation of the treatment intent groups. The exclusion of fit older adult patients (G8-screening > 14 points) suggests that our cut-off values are probably not applicable to these patients, warranting further research in this group. Furthermore, a time delay of 2 months between the CT scan and CGA was accepted, in which time the muscle mass may have changed, and we excluded newer scans taken after treatment initiation. Modest area-under-the-curve values, positive and negative predictive values, and broad CIs also indicate the need for further research in larger patient cohorts. The major strengths of the study are the primary endpoint and the patient population, where treatment decisions are extremely challenging. The 3-month OS, commonly used in oncological studies [64,69,70], was chosen to control the heterogeneity of the patient material and to serve as a surrogate for treatability decisions. The study is also a real-life application of body composition analysis, where all consecutive frail older adults were enrolled, and it reflects the current clinical practice of a modern geriatric oncological unit.

5. Conclusions

CT-determined low SMI is independently associated with impaired 3-month OS in frail older adults with cancer treated with non-curative intent. In addition, low PMI was associated with impaired functional status, and both muscle indexes were associated with malnutrition. Low SMI could thus be used as an indicator of treatability alongside oncologic and geriatric assessments and can help in the treatment decision between active oncological treatment and best supportive care or follow-up.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers15133398/s1, Table S1: Extended patient characteristics for non-curative and curative treatment intent groups; Table S2: Extended associations between optimized low skeletal muscle index (SMI) and patient characteristics; Table S3: Extended associations between optimized low psoas muscle index (PMI) and patient characteristics; Table S4: Demographic comparisons of the referred SMI/PMI cut-off studies in the literature.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.T., H.K., K.L., M.B., P.Ö. and O.A.; methodology, A.T., H.H., P.Ö. and O.A.; software, A.T. and O.A.; validation, A.T., H.K., K.L., M.B., P.Ö. and O.A.; formal analysis, A.T., H.H., P.Ö. and O.A.; investigation, A.T., H.K. and K.L.; resources, H.K., K.L., M.B., P.Ö. and O.A.; data curation, A.T., K.L., M.B., P.Ö. and O.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.T., H.K., K.L., M.B., P.Ö. and O.A.; writing—review and editing, A.T., H.K., K.L., M.B., P.Ö. and O.A.; visualization, A.T., P.Ö. and O.A.; supervision, H.K., K.L., M.B., P.Ö. and O.A.; project administration, H.K., K.L., M.B., P.Ö. and O.A.; funding acquisition, H.K., K.L., M.B., P.Ö. and O.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Orion Research Foundation sr (2023), Finnish Cancer Foundation (2022–23), The Finnish Medical Association (Kunnanlääkäri Uulo Arhion muistorahasto 2023), Tampere University Hospital Funds (Tukisäätiö 2021–22; OOO 2020), and Tampere University Hospital (project numbers MK347, MJ006N, MK325).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the local institutional review board at Tampere University Hospital (study numbers: R19628S and R20503S). Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent are not needed in single-institution register-based studies in Finland.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived by the local institutional review board due to the retrospective nature of the study in accordance with the Finnish law.

Data Availability Statement

All the relevant data are presented in the article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Esa Jämsén for establishing the geriatric oncological clinic, the personnel who work at the geriatric oncological clinic, especially geriatrician Eveliina Hakala and the nurses (Teemu Merikumpu, Heidi Köppä, Maarit Reiss, Marjukka Tainio, and Maire Kemppainen), and Celina Österlund for the creation of Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Balducci, L.; Aapro, M. Epidemiology of Cancer and Aging. Biol. Basis Geriatr. Oncol. 2005, 124, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Handforth, C.; Clegg, A.; Young, C.; Simpkins, S.; Seymour, M.T.; Selby, P.J.; Young, J. The Prevalence and Outcomes of Frailty in Older Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review. Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 1091–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Huynh, L.; Moore, J. Palliative and End-of-Life Care for the Older Adult with Cancer. Curr. Opin. Support. Palliat. Care 2021, 15, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Veasey Rodrigues, H.; Baracos, V.E.; Wheler, J.J.; Parsons, H.A.; Hong, D.S.; Naing, A.; Fu, S.; Falchoock, G.; Tsimberidou, A.M.; Piha-Paul, S.; et al. Body Composition and Survival in the Early Clinical Trials Setting. Eur. J. Cancer 2013, 49, 3068–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Extermann, M.; Aapro, M.; Topinkova, E.; Bernabei, R.; Cohen, H.J.; Droz, J.-P.; Lichtman, S.; Mor, V.; Monfardini, S.; Repetto, L.; et al. Use of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Older Cancer Patients: Recommendations from the Task Force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG). Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2005, 55, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mohile, S.G.; Mohamed, M.R.; Culakova, E.; Xu, H.; Loh, K.P.; Magnuson, A.; Flannery, M.A.; Ramsdale, E.E.; Dunne, R.F.; Gilmore, N.; et al. A Geriatric Assessment (GA) Intervention to Reduce Treatment Toxicity in Older Patients with Advanced Cancer: A University of Rochester Cancer Center NCI Community Oncology Research Program Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial (CRCT). J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 12009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, D.; Sun, C.-L.; Kim, H.; Soto-Perez-de-Celis, E.; Chung, V.; Koczywas, M.; Fakih, M.; Chao, J.; Cabrera Chien, L.; Charles, K.; et al. Geriatric Assessment-Driven Intervention (GAIN) on Chemotherapy-Related Toxic Effects in Older Adults with Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021, 7, e214158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Soo, W.-K.; King, M.; Pope, A.; Parente, P.; Darzins, P.; Davis, I.D. Integrated Geriatric Assessment and Treatment (INTEGERATE) in Older People with Cancer Planned for Systemic Anticancer Therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 12011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chuang, M.-H.; Chen, J.-Y.; Tsai, W.-W.; Lee, C.-W.; Lee, M.-C.; Tseng, W.-H.; Hung, K.-C. Impact of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment on the Risk of Adverse Events in the Older Patients Receiving Anti-Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Age Ageing 2022, 51, afac145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. 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]
  11. Arends, J.; Strasser, F.; Gonella, S.; Solheim, T.S.; Madeddu, C.; Ravasco, P.; Buonaccorso, L.; de van der Schueren, M.A.E.; Baldwin, C.; Chasen, M.; et al. Cancer Cachexia in Adult Patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. ESMO Open 2021, 6, 100092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Prado, C.M.M.; Lieffers, J.R.; McCargar, L.J.; Reiman, T.; Sawyer, M.B.; Martin, L.; Baracos, V.E. Prevalence and Clinical Implications of Sarcopenic Obesity in Patients with Solid Tumours of the Respiratory and Gastrointestinal Tracts: A Population-Based Study. Lancet Oncol. 2008, 9, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sugiyama, K.; Narita, Y.; Mitani, S.; Honda, K.; Masuishi, T.; Taniguchi, H.; Kadowaki, S.; Ura, T.; Ando, M.; Tajika, M.; et al. Baseline Sarcopenia and Skeletal Muscle Loss During Chemotherapy Affect Survival Outcomes in Metastatic Gastric Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2018, 38, 5859–5866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. van Rijn-Dekker, M.I.; van den Bosch, L.; van den Hoek, J.G.M.; Bijl, H.P.; van Aken, E.S.M.; van der Hoorn, A.; Oosting, S.F.; Halmos, G.B.; Witjes, M.J.H.; van der Laan, H.P.; et al. Impact of Sarcopenia on Survival and Late Toxicity in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Treated with Radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 147, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Shachar, S.S.; Deal, A.M.; Weinberg, M.; Nyrop, K.A.; Williams, G.R.; Nishijima, T.F.; Benbow, J.M.; Muss, H.B. Skeletal Muscle Measures as Predictors of Toxicity, Hospitalization, and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Taxane-Based Chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 658–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Cushen, S.J.; Power, D.G.; Murphy, K.P.; McDermott, R.; Griffin, B.T.; Lim, M.; Daly, L.; MacEneaney, P.; O’ Sullivan, K.; Prado, C.M.; et al. Impact of Body Composition Parameters on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Docetaxel. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2016, 13, e39–e45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Daly, L.E.; Ní Bhuachalla, É.B.; Power, D.G.; Cushen, S.J.; James, K.; Ryan, A.M. Loss of Skeletal Muscle during Systemic Chemotherapy Is Prognostic of Poor Survival in Patients with Foregut Cancer. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2018, 9, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Han, J.S.; Ryu, H.; Park, I.J.; Kim, K.W.; Shin, Y.; Kim, S.O.; Lim, S.-B.; Kim, C.W.; Yoon, Y.S.; Lee, J.L.; et al. Association of Body Composition with Long-Term Survival in Non-Metastatic Rectal Cancer Patients. Cancer Res. Treat. 2020, 52, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Portal, D.; Hofstetter, L.; Eshed, I.; Dan-Lantsman, C.; Sella, T.; Urban, D.; Onn, A.; Bar, J.; Segal, G. L3 Skeletal Muscle Index (L3SMI) Is a Surrogate Marker of Sarcopenia and Frailty in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients. Cancer Manag. Res. 2019, 11, 2579–2588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Couderc, A.-L.; Liuu, E.; Boudou-Rouquette, P.; Poisson, J.; Frelaut, M.; Montégut, C.; Mebarki, S.; Geiss, R.; Ap Thomas, Z.; Noret, A.; et al. Pre-Therapeutic Sarcopenia among Cancer Patients: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis of Prevalence and Predictive Value during Cancer Treatment. Nutrients 2023, 15, 1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wendrich, A.W.; Swartz, J.E.; Bril, S.I.; Wegner, I.; de Graeff, A.; Smid, E.J.; de Bree, R.; Pothen, A.J. Low Skeletal Muscle Mass Is a Predictive Factor for Chemotherapy Dose-Limiting Toxicity in Patients with Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer. Oral Oncol. 2017, 71, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tan, B.H.L.; Brammer, K.; Randhawa, N.; Welch, N.T.; Parsons, S.L.; James, E.J.; Catton, J.A. Sarcopenia Is Associated with Toxicity in Patients Undergoing Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Oesophago-Gastric Cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 41, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Nipp, R.D.; Fuchs, G.; El-Jawahri, A.; Mario, J.; Troschel, F.M.; Greer, J.A.; Gallagher, E.R.; Jackson, V.A.; Kambadakone, A.; Hong, T.S.; et al. Sarcopenia Is Associated with Quality of Life and Depression in Patients with Advanced Cancer. Oncologist 2018, 23, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Tolonen, A.; Pakarinen, T.; Sassi, A.; Kyttä, J.; Cancino, W.; Rinta-Kiikka, I.; Pertuz, S.; Arponen, O. Methodology, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions of Body Composition Analysis Using Computed Tomography (CT) Images: A Review. Eur. J. Radiol. 2021, 145, 109943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Soubeyran, P.; Bellera, C.; Goyard, J.; Heitz, D.; Curé, H.; Rousselot, H.; Albrand, G.; Servent, V.; Jean, O.S.; van Praagh, I.; et al. Screening for Vulnerability in Older Cancer Patients: The ONCODAGE Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e115060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Osterlund, P.; Salminen, T.; Soveri, L.-M.; Kallio, R.; Kellokumpu, I.; Lamminmäki, A.; Halonen, P.; Ristamäki, R.; Lantto, E.; Uutela, A.; et al. Repeated Centralized Multidisciplinary Team Assessment of Resectability, Clinical Behavior, and Outcomes in 1086 Finnish Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients (RAXO): A Nationwide Prospective Intervention Study. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2021, 3, 100049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Eisenhauer, E.A.; Therasse, P.; Bogaerts, J.; Schwartz, L.H.; Sargent, D.; Ford, R.; Dancey, J.; Arbuck, S.; Gwyther, S.; Mooney, M.; et al. New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours: Revised RECIST Guideline (Version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 2009, 45, 228–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. 3D Slicer. Available online: https://www.slicer.org/ (accessed on 13 April 2023).
  29. Peng, Y.-C.; Wu, C.-H.; Tien, Y.-W.; Lu, T.-P.; Wang, Y.-H.; Chen, B.-B. Preoperative Sarcopenia Is Associated with Poor Overall Survival in Pancreatic Cancer Patients Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Eur. Radiol. 2021, 31, 2472–2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Oken, M.M.; Creech, R.H.; Tormey, D.C.; Horton, J.; Davis, T.E.; McFadden, E.T.; Carbone, P.P. Toxicity and Response Criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 1982, 5, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. van Kan, G.A.; Rolland, Y.M.; Morley, J.E.; Vellas, B. Frailty: Toward a Clinical Definition. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2008, 9, 71–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rockwood, K.; Song, X.; MacKnight, C.; Bergman, H.; Hogan, D.B.; McDowell, I.; Mitnitski, A. A Global Clinical Measure of Fitness and Frailty in Elderly People. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2005, 173, 489–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Finlayson, M.; Mallinson, T.; Barbosa, V.M. Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Items Were Stable over Time in a Longitudinal Study on Aging. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2005, 58, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aromaa, A.; Koskinen, S. Health and Functional Capacity in Finland. Baseline Results of the Health 2000 Health Examination Survey. National Public Health Institute. 2004. Available online: https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201204193452 (accessed on 13 April 2023).
  35. Rubenstein, L.Z.; Harker, J.O.; Salvà, A.; Guigoz, Y.; Vellas, B. Screening for Undernutrition in Geriatric Practice: Developing the Short-Form Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF). J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2001, 56, M366–M372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Cederholm, T.; Jensen, G.L.; Correia, M.I.T.D.; Gonzalez, M.C.; Fukushima, R.; Higashiguchi, T.; Baptista, G.; Barazzoni, R.; Blaauw, R.; Coats, A.; et al. GLIM Criteria for the Diagnosis of Malnutrition—A Consensus Report from the Global Clinical Nutrition Community. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 38, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Proctor, M.J.; Morrison, D.S.; Talwar, D.; Balmer, S.M.; O’Rreilly, D.; Foulis, A.K.; Horgan, P.G.; McMillan, D.C. An Inflammation-Based Prognostic Score (MGPS) Predicts Cancer Survival Independent of Tumour Site: A Glasgow Inflammation Outcome Study. Br. J. Cancer 2011, 104, 726–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Sorbye, H.; Köhne, C.-H.; Sargent, D.J.; Glimelius, B. Patient Characteristics and Stratification in Medical Treatment Studies for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Proposal for Standardization of Patient Characteristic Reporting and Stratification. Ann. Oncol. 2007, 18, 1666–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Martin, L.; Birdsell, L.; Macdonald, N.; Reiman, T.; Clandinin, M.T.; McCargar, L.J.; Murphy, R.; Ghosh, S.; Sawyer, M.B.; Baracos, V.E. Cancer Cachexia in the Age of Obesity: Skeletal Muscle Depletion Is a Powerful Prognostic Factor, Independent of Body Mass Index. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 1539–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Baracos, V.E.; Rreiman, T.; Mourtzakis, M.; Gioulbasanis, I.; Antoun, S. Body Composition in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Contemporary View of Cancer Cachexia with the Use of Computed Tomography Image Analysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 91, 1133S–1137S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. van Vledder, M.G.; Levolger, S.; Ayez, N.; Verhoef, C.; Tran, T.C.K.; IJzermans, J.N.M. Body Composition and Outcome in Patients Undergoing Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Br. J. Surg. 2012, 99, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Camus, V.; Lanic, H.; Kraut, J.; Modzelewski, R.; Clatot, F.; Picquenot, J.M.; Contentin, N.; Lenain, P.; Groza, L.; Lemasle, E.; et al. Prognostic Impact of Fat Tissue Loss and Cachexia Assessed by Computed Tomography Scan in Elderly Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with Immunochemotherapy. Eur. J. Haematol. 2014, 93, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Amini, N.; Spolverato, G.; Gupta, R.; Margonis, G.A.; Kim, Y.; Wagner, D.; Rezaee, N.; Weiss, M.J.; Wolfgang, C.L.; Makary, M.M.; et al. Impact Total Psoas Volume on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Curative Resection for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A New Tool to Assess Sarcopenia. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2015, 19, 1593–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Joglekar, S.; Asghar, A.; Mott, S.L.; Johnson, B.E.; Button, A.M.; Clark, E.; Mezhir, J.J. Sarcopenia Is an Independent Predictor of Complications Following Pancreatectomy for Adenocarcinoma. J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 111, 771–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Deluche, E.; Leobon, S.; Desport, J.C.; Venat-Bouvet, L.; Usseglio, J.; Tubiana-Mathieu, N. Impact of Body Composition on Outcome in Patients with Early Breast Cancer. Support Care Cancer 2018, 26, 861–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Su, H.; Ruan, J.; Chen, T.; Lin, E.; Shi, L. CT-Assessed Sarcopenia Is a Predictive Factor for Both Long-Term and Short-Term Outcomes in Gastrointestinal Oncology Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancer Imaging 2019, 19, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Shirdel, M.; Andersson, F.; Myte, R.; Axelsson, J.; Rutegård, M.; Blomqvist, L.; Riklund, K.; van Guelpen, B.; Palmqvist, R.; Gylling, B. Body Composition Measured by Computed Tomography Is Associated with Colorectal Cancer Survival, also in Early-Stage Disease. Acta Oncol. 2020, 59, 799–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Basile, D.; Parnofiello, A.; Vitale, M.G.; Cortiula, F.; Gerratana, L.; Fanotto, V.; Lisanti, C.; Pelizzari, G.; Ongaro, E.; Bartoletti, M.; et al. The IMPACT Study: Early Loss of Skeletal Muscle Mass in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2019, 10, 368–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Fukushima, H.; Nakanishi, Y.; Kataoka, M.; Tobisu, K.; Koga, F. Prognostic Significance of Sarcopenia in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. J. Urol. 2016, 195, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jung, A.R.; Roh, J.-L.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, S.-B.; Choi, S.-H.; Nam, S.Y.; Kim, S.Y. Prognostic Value of Body Composition on Recurrence and Survival of Advanced-Stage Head and Neck Cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 116, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jiralerspong, S.; Kim, E.S.; Dong, W.; Feng, L.; Hortobagyi, G.N.; Giordano, S.H. Obesity, Diabetes, and Survival Outcomes in a Large Cohort of Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients. Ann. Oncol. 2013, 24, 2506–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Petrelli, F.; Cortellini, A.; Indini, A.; Tomasello, G.; Ghidini, M.; Nigro, O.; Salati, M.; Dottorini, L.; Iaculli, A.; Varricchio, A.; et al. Association of Obesity with Survival Outcomes in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e213520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chan, D.S.M.; Vieira, A.R.; Aune, D.; Bandera, E.V.; Greenwood, D.C.; McTiernan, A.; Navarro Rosenblatt, D.; Thune, I.; Vieira, R.; Norat, T. Body Mass Index and Survival in Women with Breast Cancer-Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of 82 Follow-up Studies. Ann. Oncol. 2014, 25, 1901–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chiu, C.-C.; Ho, C.-H.; Hung, C.-M.; Chao, C.-M.; Lai, C.-C.; Chen, C.-M.; Liao, K.-M.; Wang, J.-J.; Wu, Y.-C.; Shi, H.-Y.; et al. Correlation of Body Mass Index with Oncologic Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Large Population-Based Study. Cancers 2021, 13, 3592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Takeyama, H.; Noura, S.; Suzuki, Y.; Odagiri, K.; Yanagimoto, Y.; Yamashita, M.; Shimizu, J.; Kawase, T.; Imamura, H.; Iwazawa, T.; et al. Higher Body Mass Index Is a Simple Favorable Non-Cancer Prognostic Marker for Japanese Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients after Curative Resection. J. Anus Rectum Colon 2022, 6, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. An, Y.; Wu, Z.; Wang, N.; Yang, Z.; Li, Y.; Xu, B.; Sun, M. Association between Body Mass Index and Survival Outcomes for Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Transl. Med. 2020, 18, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ligibel, J.A.; Alfano, C.M.; Courneya, K.S.; Demark-Wahnefried, W.; Burger, R.A.; Chlebowski, R.T.; Fabian, C.J.; Gucalp, A.; Hershman, D.L.; Hudson, M.M.; et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Position Statement on Obesity and Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 3568–3574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mullen, J.T.; Davenport, D.L.; Hutter, M.M.; Hosokawa, P.W.; Henderson, W.G.; Khuri, S.F.; Moorman, D.W. Impact of Body Mass Index on Perioperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Major Intra-Abdominal Cancer Surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 15, 2164–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Wu, X.-S.; Wu, W.-G.; Li, M.-L.; Yang, J.-H.; Ding, Q.-C.; Zhang, L.; Mu, J.-S.; Gu, J.; Dong, P.; Lu, J.-H.; et al. Impact of Being Overweight on the Surgical Outcomes of Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 19, 4596–4606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Kroenke, C.H.; Neugebauer, R.; Meyerhardt, J.; Prado, C.M.; Weltzien, E.; Kwan, M.L.; Xiao, J.; Caan, B.J. Analysis of Body Mass Index and Mortality in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Using Causal Diagrams. JAMA Oncol. 2016, 2, 1137–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Mayr, R.; Fritsche, H.-M.; Zeman, F.; Reiffen, M.; Siebertz, L.; Niessen, C.; Pycha, A.; van Rhijn, B.W.G.; Burger, M.; Gierth, M. Sarcopenia Predicts 90-Day Mortality and Postoperative Complications after Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer. World J. Urol. 2018, 36, 1201–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yang, T.; Luo, K.; Deng, X.; Xu, L.; Wang, R.; Ji, P. Effect of Sarcopenia in Predicting Postoperative Mortality in Emergency Laparotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World J. Emerg. Surg. 2022, 17, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Morshed, R.A.; Young, J.S.; Casey, M.; Wang, E.J.; Aghi, M.K.; Berger, M.S.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L. Sarcopenia Diagnosed Using Masseter Muscle Diameter as a Survival Correlate in Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma. World Neurosurg. 2022, 161, e448–e463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Berardi, G.; Antonelli, G.; Colasanti, M.; Meniconi, R.; Guglielmo, N.; Laurenzi, A.; Ferretti, S.; Levi Sandri, G.B.; Spagnoli, A.; Moschetta, G.; et al. Association of Sarcopenia and Body Composition with Short-Term Outcomes after Liver Resection for Malignant Tumors. JAMA Surg. 2020, 155, e203336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Meister, F.A.; Lurje, G.; Verhoeven, S.; Wiltberger, G.; Heij, L.; Liu, W.-J.; Jiang, D.; Bruners, P.; Lang, S.A.; Ulmer, T.F.; et al. The Role of Sarcopenia and Myosteatosis in Short-and Long-Term Outcomes Following Curative-Intent Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a European Cohort. Cancers 2022, 14, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Wei, K.; Nyunt, M.-S.-Z.; Gao, Q.; Wee, S.-L.; Yap, K.-B.; Ng, T.-P. Association of Frailty and Malnutrition With Long-Term Functional and Mortality Outcomes Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Results from the Singapore Longitudinal Aging Study 1. JAMA Netw. Open 2018, 1, e180650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Shamliyan, T.; Talley, K.M.C.; Ramakrishnan, R.; Kane, R.L. Association of Frailty with Survival: A Systematic Literature Review. Ageing Res. Rev. 2013, 12, 719–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Nguyen, Q.D.; Wu, C.; Odden, M.C.; Kim, D.H. Multimorbidity Patterns, Frailty, and Survival in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2019, 74, 1265–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Zachariah, F.J.; Rossi, L.A.; Roberts, L.M.; Bosserman, L.D. Prospective Comparison of Medical Oncologists and a Machine Learning Model to Predict 3-Month Mortality in Patients with Metastatic Solid Tumors. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2214514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. D’Journo, X.B.; Boulate, D.; Fourdrain, A.; Loundou, A.; van Berge Henegouwen, M.I.; Gisbertz, S.S.; O’Neill, J.R.; Hoelscher, A.; Piessen, G.; van Lanschot, J.; et al. Risk Prediction Model of 90-Day Mortality after Esophagectomy for Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2021, 156, 836–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flowchart for geriatric oncological patients at the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Tampere University Hospital.
Figure 1. Flowchart for geriatric oncological patients at the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Tampere University Hospital.
Cancers 15 03398 g001
Figure 2. Body composition analysis is performed from an axial slice at the midpoint of the third lumbar vertebral level. The patient had a low optimized skeletal muscle index (SMI) value of 45.7 cm2/m2 and an optimized psoas muscle index (PMI) of 5.06 cm2/m2.
Figure 2. Body composition analysis is performed from an axial slice at the midpoint of the third lumbar vertebral level. The patient had a low optimized skeletal muscle index (SMI) value of 45.7 cm2/m2 and an optimized psoas muscle index (PMI) of 5.06 cm2/m2.
Cancers 15 03398 g002
Figure 3. Optimized skeletal muscle index (SMI) and psoas muscle index (PMI) cut-offs to predict 3-month overall survival were determined by maximizing Youden’s indexes on the receiver operating characteristic curve. For men, the cut-offs were 48.8 cm2/m2 for SMI (A) and 5.05 cm2/m2 for PMI (B); for women 33.4 cm2/m2 for SMI (C) and 4.06 cm2/m2 for PMI (D).
Figure 3. Optimized skeletal muscle index (SMI) and psoas muscle index (PMI) cut-offs to predict 3-month overall survival were determined by maximizing Youden’s indexes on the receiver operating characteristic curve. For men, the cut-offs were 48.8 cm2/m2 for SMI (A) and 5.05 cm2/m2 for PMI (B); for women 33.4 cm2/m2 for SMI (C) and 4.06 cm2/m2 for PMI (D).
Cancers 15 03398 g003
Figure 4. The Kaplan–Meier plots for 3-month OS rates in non-curative treatment intent patients based on optimized skeletal muscle index (SMI; (A)) and psoas muscle index (PMI; (B)) cut-offs determined with the Youden’s index method for patients in the non-curative intent treatment group.
Figure 4. The Kaplan–Meier plots for 3-month OS rates in non-curative treatment intent patients based on optimized skeletal muscle index (SMI; (A)) and psoas muscle index (PMI; (B)) cut-offs determined with the Youden’s index method for patients in the non-curative intent treatment group.
Cancers 15 03398 g004
Figure 5. The Kaplan–Meier plots for long-term OS for patients in non-curative treatment intent group based on optimized skeletal muscle index (SMI; (A)) and psoas muscle index (PMI; (B)) and for patients in curative treatment intent group based on SMI (C) and PMI (D).
Figure 5. The Kaplan–Meier plots for long-term OS for patients in non-curative treatment intent group based on optimized skeletal muscle index (SMI; (A)) and psoas muscle index (PMI; (B)) and for patients in curative treatment intent group based on SMI (C) and PMI (D).
Cancers 15 03398 g005
Table 1. Patient characteristics for non-curative and curative treatment intent groups.
Table 1. Patient characteristics for non-curative and curative treatment intent groups.
All Non-CurativeCurative
N = 80%n = 58%n = 22%OR (95% CI)
Age75–80 years3949284811501
≥80 years4151305211500.93 (0.4–2.5)
SexFemale374628489411
Male4354305213591.35 (0.5–3.6)
Tumor siteUpper GI374630527321
Lower GI2633122114645.00 (1.6–15) *
Other a17211628150.27 (0.0–2.4)
Tumor stageLocal13160013591
Metastatic or locally advanced678458100941N/A
ECOG performance status0 to 25265376415681
3 to 4222815267321.15 (0.4–3.4)
Not available6861000
Activities of daily livingNormal5265356017771
Impaired243019335230.54 (0.2–1.7)
Not available454700
Clinical frailty scale1 to 44860356013591
5 to 9263320356270.81 (0.3–2.5)
Not available6835314
BMI≥22 kg/m26176427219861
<22 kg/m2192416283140.41 (0.1–1.6)
GLIM bNormal3139193312551
Malnourishment4455345910460.47 (0.2–1.39)
Not available565900
Hand-grip strength testNormal4860366212551
Impaired222813229412.08 (0.7–6.1)
Not available101391615
Albumin≥30 g/L4151284813591
<30 g/L172114243140.46 (0.1–1.9)
Not available22281628627
SMI cNormal3342223811521
Low4658366210480.56 (0.2–1.5)
PMI cNormal4354335710461
Low3746254312551.58 (0.6–4.3)
Treatment decisionOncological treatments4151315310461
Follow-up or BSC d3949274712551.38 (0.5–3.7)
Survival at 3 monthsAlive66834476221001
Deceased1418142400N/A
a Other cancers included 7 genitourinary cancers, 4 breast cancers, 4 lung cancers, 1 sarcoma of the lower limb, and 1 thymus carcinoma; b Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition classification; c patients were divided into normal and low SMI/PMI categories using our cut-offs obtained by maximizing the Youden’s index on the receiver operator characteristic curve; d best supportive care; * indicates statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 2. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses between different muscle index cut-offs and 3-month OS in the non-curative intent group.
Table 2. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses between different muscle index cut-offs and 3-month OS in the non-curative intent group.
All PatientsNon-Curative PatientsUnivariateMultivariable a
Cut-OffNn Univariate/n MultivariableHR 95% CIHR 95% CI
Study SMI (Youden) bNormal3322/2211
Low4636/299.28 (1.2–71) *10.65 (1.0–110) *
Study SMI (median) cNormal4029/2811
Low3929/232.06 (0.7–6.2)2.21 (0.6–8.4)
Prado et al. SMI d [12]Normal107/711
Low6951/4425.21 (0.0–19,000)N/A
Martin et al. SMI e [39]Normal139/811
Low6649/431.19 (0.3–5.3)1.00 (0.1–8.8)
Baracos et al. SMI f [40]Normal107/711
Low6951/4425.21 (0.0–19,400)N/A
van Vledder et al. SMI g [41]Normal2114/1311
Low5844/380.86 (0.3–2.7)1.01 (0.3–4.5)
Camus et al. SMI h [42]Normal97/711
Low7051/4425.21 (0.3–19,000)N/A
Study PMI (Youden) iNormal4333/3211
Low3725/184.10 (1.3–13) *2.23 (0.6–8.9)
Study PMI (median) jNormal4131/3011
Low3927/214.48 (1.1–11) *1.56 (0.4–6.5)
Amini et al. PMI k [43]Normal3426/2611
Low4632/253.46 (1.0–12)1.84 (0.4–7.7)
Joglekar et al. PMI l [44]Normal3728/2811
Low4330/232.74 (0.9–8.7)1.31 (0.3–5.2)
a Adjusted for sex (female vs. male), ECOG performance status (0–2 vs. 3–4), clinical frailty scale (1–4 vs. 5–9); b cut-offs for SMI by Youden method were 48.8 cm2/m2 for men and 33.4 cm2/m2 for women; c median cut-offs for SMI were 42.4 cm2/m2 for men and 35.0 cm2/m2 for women; d cut-offs for SMI by Prado et al. [12], 52.4 cm2/m2 for men and 38.5 cm2/m2 for women; e cut-offs for SMI by Martin et al. [39] 43 cm2/m2 for men with BMI < 25 kg/m2, 53 cm2/m2 for men with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, and 41 cm2/m2 for women regardless of BMI; f cut-offs for SMI by Baracos et al. [40], 55.4 cm2/m2 for men and 38.9 cm2/m2 for women; g cut-offs for SMI by van Vledder et al. [41], 43.8 cm2/m2 for men and 38.9 cm2/m2 for women; h cut-offs for SMI by Camus et al. [42], 55.8 cm2/m2 for men and 38.9 cm2/m2 for women; i cut-offs for PMI by Youden method were 5.05 cm2/m2 for men and 4.06 cm2/m2 for women; j median cut-offs for PMI were 5.06 cm2/m2 for men and 4.15 cm2/m2 for women; k cut-offs for PMI by Amini et al. [43], 5.642 cm2/m2 for men and 4.145 cm2/m2 for women; l cut-offs for PMI by Joglekar et al. [44], 5.2 cm2/m2 for men and 4.0 cm2/m2 for women; N/A = not applicable; * indicates statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 3. Associations between optimized low skeletal muscle index (SMI) and patient characteristics.
Table 3. Associations between optimized low skeletal muscle index (SMI) and patient characteristics.
Non-Curative TreatmentCurative Treatment
Normal SMILow SMI a Normal SMILow SMI a
n = 22n = 36OR (95% CI)n = 11n = 10OR (95% CI)
n (%)n (%) n (%)n (%)
Age75–80 years8 (29)20 (71)18 (80)2 (20)1
≥80 years14 (47)16 (53)0.46 (0.2–1.4)3 (27)8 (73)10.67 (1.4–82) *
SexFemale19 (68)9 (32)16 (67)3 (33)1
Male3 (10)27 (90)19.00 (4.5–80) *5 (42)7 (58)2.80 (0.5–17)
Tumor siteUpper GI8 (27)22 (73)14 (57)3 (43)1
Lower GI4 (33)8 (67)0.73 (0.2–3.1)7 (54)6 (46)1.14 (0.2–7.3)
Other b10 (63)6 (38)0.22 (0.1–0.8)0 (0)1 (100)N/A
Tumor stageLocal0 (0)0 (0)17 (54)6 (46)1
Metastatic or locally advanced22 (38)36 (62)N/A4 (50)4 (50)1.17 (0.2–6.8)
ECOG performance status0 to 216 (43)21 (57)19 (60)6 (40)1
3 to 46 (40)9 (60)1.14 (0.3–3.9)2 (33)4 (67)3.00 (0.4–22)
Not available0 (0)6 (100) 0 (0)0 (0)
Activities of daily livingNormal14 (40)21 (60)18 (50)8 (50)1
Impaired7 (37)12 (63)1.14 (0.4–3.6)3 (60)2 (40)0.67 (0.1–5.1)
Not available1 (25)3 (75) 0 (0)0 (0)
Clinical frailty scale1 to 415 (43)20 (57)18 (62)5 (39)1
5 to 97 (35)13 (65)1.39 (0.4–4.3)2 (40)3 (60)2.40 (0.3–20)
Not available0 (0)3 (100) 1 (33)2 (67)
BMI≥22 kg/m217 (41)25 (60)110 (56)8 (44)1
<22 kg/m25 (31)11 (69)1.50 (0.4–5.1)1 (33)2 (67)2.50 (0.2–33)
GLIM cNormal11 (58)8 (42)16 (55)5 (46)1
Malnourishment9 (27)25 (74)3.82 (1.2–13) *5 (50)5 (50)1.20 (0.2–6.7)
Not available2 (40)3 (60) 0 (0)0 (0)
Hand-grip strength testNormal16 (44)20 (56)16 (50)6 (50)1
Impaired3 (23)10 (77)2.67 (0.6–11)4 (50)4 (50)1.00 (0.2–6.0)
Not available3 (33)6 (67) 1 (100)0 (0)
Albumin≥30 g/L12 (43)16 (57)18 (67)4 (33)1
<30 g/L2 (14)12 (86)4.50 (0.8–24)1 (33)2 (67)4.00 (0.3–59)
Not available8 (50)8 (50) 2 (33)4 (67)
Treatment decisionOncological treatment16 (52)15 (48)16 (60)4 (40)1
Follow-up or BSC d6 (22)21 (78)3.73 (1.2–12) *5 (46)6 (55)1.80 (0.3–10)
Survival at 3 monthsAlive21 (48)23 (52)111 (52)10 (48)1
Deceased1 (7)13 (93)11.87 (1.4–99) *0 (0)0 (0)N/A
a Patients with normal and low SMI according to our cut-offs obtained by maximizing the Youden’s index on the receiver operator characteristic curve. b Other cancers included 7 genitourinary cancers, 4 breast cancers, 4 lung cancers, 1 sarcoma of the lower limb, and 1 thymus carcinoma. c Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition classification. d Best supportive care. * indicates statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 4. Associations between optimized low psoas muscle index (PMI) and patient characteristics.
Table 4. Associations between optimized low psoas muscle index (PMI) and patient characteristics.
Non-Curative TreatmentCurative Treatment
Normal PMILow PMI a Normal PMILow PMI a
n = 33n = 25OR (95% CI)n = 10n = 12OR (95% CI)
n (%)n (%) n (%)n (%)
Age75–80 years16 (57)12 (43)15 (46)6 (55)1
≥80 years17 (57)13 (43)1.02 (0.4–2.9)5 (46)6 (55)1.00 (0.2–5.4)
SexFemale16 (57)12 (43)13 (33)6 (67)1
Male17 (57)13 (43)1.02 (0.4–2.9)7 (54)6 (46)0.43 (0.1–2.5)
Tumor siteUpper GI18 (60)12 (40)11 (14)6 (86)1
Lower GI5 (42)7 (58)2.10 (0.5–8.2)8 (57)6 (43)0.13 (0.0–1.3)
Other b10 (63)6 (38)0.9 (0.3–3.1)1 (100)0 (0)N/A
Tumor stageLocal0 (0)0 (0)17 (54)6 (46)1
Metastatic or locally advanced33 (57)25 (43)N/A3 (33)6 (67)2.33 (0.4–14)
ECOG performance status0 to 226 (70)11 (30)18(53)7 (47)1
3 to 46 (40)9 (60)3.55 (1.0–12) *2 (29)5 (71)2.86 (0.4–20)
Not available1 (17)5 (83) 0 (0)0 (0)
Activities of daily livingNormal22 (63)13 (37)19 (53)8 (47)1
Impaired10 (53)9 (47)1.52 (0.5–4.7)1 (20)4 (80)4.50 (0.4–49)
Not available1 (25)3 (75) 0 (0)0 (0)
Clinical frailty scale1 to 426 (74)9 (26)16 (46)7 (54)1
5 to 97 (35)13 (65)5.37 (1.6–18) *1 (17)5 (83)4.29 (0.4–48)
Not available0 (0)3 (100) 3 (100)0 (0)
BMI≥22 kg/m225 (60)17 (41)110 (53)9 (47)1
<22 kg/m28 (50)8 (50)1.47 (0.5–4.7)0 (0)3 (100)N/A
GLIM cNormal15 (79)4 (21)16 (50)6 (50)1
Malnourishment16 (47)18 (53)4.22 (1.2–15) *4 (40)6 (60)1.50 (0.3–8.2)
Not available2 (40)3 (60) 0 (0)0 (0)
Hand-grip strengthNormal26 (72)10 (28)14 (33)8 (67)1
Impaired4 (31)9 (69)5.85 (1.5–23) *5 (56)4 (44)0.40 (0.1–2.4)
Not available3 (33)6 (67) 1 (100)0 (0)
Albumin≥3019 (68)9 (32)17 (54)6 (46)1
<306 (43)8 (57)2.82 (0.8–11)0 (0)3 (100)N/A
Not available8 (50)8 (50) 3 (50)3 (50)
Treatment decisionOncological treatment23 (74)8 (26)13 (30)7 (70)1
Follow-up or BSC d10 (37)17 (63)4.89 (1.6–15) *7 (58)5 (42)0.31 (0.1–1.8)
Survival at 3 monthsAlive29 (66)15 (34)110 (46)12 (55)1
Deceased4 (29)10 (71)4.83 (1.3–18) *0 (0)0 (0)N/A
a Patients with normal and low PMI categories according to our cut-offs obtained by maximizing the Youden’s index on the receiver operator characteristic curve. b Other cancers included 7 genitourinary cancers, 4 breast cancers, 4 lung cancers, 1 sarcoma of the lower limb, and 1 thymus carcinoma. c Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition classification. d Best supportive care. * indicates statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 5. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses between 3-month OS and optimized muscle indexes (SMI/PMI), sex, ECOG performance status and clinical frailty scale in the non-curative intent treatment group.
Table 5. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses between 3-month OS and optimized muscle indexes (SMI/PMI), sex, ECOG performance status and clinical frailty scale in the non-curative intent treatment group.
SMI PMI
Patient nUnivariateMultivariableUnivariateMultivariable
Univariate/MultivariableHR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)
Muscle mass
  NormalSMI 22/22; PMI 33/321111
  Low aSMI 36/29; PMI 25/189.28 (1.2–71) *10.65 (1.0–110) *4.10 (1.3–13) *2.23 (0.6–8.9)
Sex
  Women28/251111
  Men30/261.68 (0.6–5.0)0.57 (0.1–2.8)1.68 (0.6–5.0)2.1 (0.5–8.1)
ECOG PS
  0 to 237/361111
  3 to 415/153.01 (0.9–10)2.34 (0.6–9.8)3.01 (0.9–10)1.80 (0.4–7.2)
Clinical frailty scale
  1 to 435/331111
  5 to 920/183.35 (1.1–10) *2.11 (0.5–8.6)3.35 (1.1–10) *1.66 (0.4–7.6)
a Patients were divided into normal and low SMI/PMI categories using our SMI/PMI cut-offs obtained by maximizing Youden’s indexes on the receiver operating characteristic curve; * indicates statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tolonen, A.; Kerminen, H.; Lehtomäki, K.; Huhtala, H.; Bärlund, M.; Österlund, P.; Arponen, O. Association between Computed Tomography-Determined Loss of Muscle Mass and Impaired Three-Month Survival in Frail Older Adults with Cancer. Cancers 2023, 15, 3398. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133398

AMA Style

Tolonen A, Kerminen H, Lehtomäki K, Huhtala H, Bärlund M, Österlund P, Arponen O. Association between Computed Tomography-Determined Loss of Muscle Mass and Impaired Three-Month Survival in Frail Older Adults with Cancer. Cancers. 2023; 15(13):3398. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133398

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tolonen, Antti, Hanna Kerminen, Kaisa Lehtomäki, Heini Huhtala, Maarit Bärlund, Pia Österlund, and Otso Arponen. 2023. "Association between Computed Tomography-Determined Loss of Muscle Mass and Impaired Three-Month Survival in Frail Older Adults with Cancer" Cancers 15, no. 13: 3398. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133398

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