Independent and joint association of sarcopenia and frailty with mortality in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a cohort study with prospective data collection

PURPOSE

Sarcopenia and frailty are associated with mortality in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer. However, it is unclear if there is an additional risk when both are present. This study aimed to investigate the independent and overlapping of sarcopenia and frailty with mortality in this population.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study including older patients (≥ 60 years old) with gastrointestinal cancer. Sarcopenia was defined by the EWGSP2 criteria: (i) low muscle strength (handgrip test), (ii) low muscle mass (skeletal muscle index), and/or low muscle quality (skeletal muscle radiodensity) by computed tomography. Frailty was defined according to Fried phenotype (at least three of the five components): (i) low muscle strength (handgrip test), (ii) unintentional weight loss, (iii) self-reported exhaustion, (iv) low physical activity, and (v) low gait speed. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess overall survival rates and risk of mortality.

RESULTS

We evaluated 179 patients with gastrointestinal cancer [68.0 (61.0-75.0) years old; 45% women]. The prevalence of sarcopenia, frailty, and sarcopenia-frailty was 32.9% (n = 59), 59.2% (n = 106), and 24.6% (n = 44), respectively. The incidence of mortality was 27.9% (n = 50) over a 23-month (IQR, 10, 28) period. There was an association of sarcopenia (HR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.03-3.06) with mortality, but no association was found of frailty and the outcome. Sarcopenia-frailty was associated with the highest risk of mortality (HR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.27-3.92).

CONCLUSION

Sarcopenic-frail older patients with gastrointestinal cancer have a higher risk of mortality than those with sarcopenia or frailty alone, which reinforces the importance of assessing both conditions in oncology clinical care.

Assessment of body composition in adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19: a scoping review

Introduction

Body composition (BC) assessment can supply accurate information for in-hospital nutritional evaluation. The aim of this study was to explore in the literature how the studies assessed BC, for what purpose, and investigate the role of BC findings in COVID-19 hospitalized patients' outcomes.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted according to the methodology available on the Joanna Briggs Institute website. We used the PCC acronym for the systematic search (population: adults with COVID-19, concept: assessment of BC, context: hospital setting) and performed it on PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science on 16 September 2022. Eligibility criteria consisted of the utilization of BC assessment tools in COVID-19 patients. Studies in which BC was solely measured with anthropometry (perimeters and skinfolds) were excluded. No language restriction was applied.

Results

Fifty-five studies were eligible for the review. Out of the 55 studies, 36 used computed tomography (CT), 13 used bioelectrical impedance (BIA), and 6 used ultrasound (US). No studies with D3-creatinine, 24  h urine excretion, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, or magnetic resonance were retrieved. BC was mainly assessed to test associations with adverse outcomes such as disease severity and mortality.

Discussion

Studies assessing BC in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 used mainly CT and BIA and associated the parameters with severity and mortality. There is little evidence of BC being assessed by other methods, as well as studies on BC changes during hospitalization.

Is the ECOG-PS similar to the sarcopenia status for predicting mortality in older adults with cancer? A prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Sarcopenia is a muscle dysfunction that increases negative outcomes in patients with cancer. However, its diagnosis remains uncommon in clinical practice. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) is a questionnaire to assess the functional status, but it is unknown if is comparable with sarcopenia. We aimed at comparing ECOG-PS with sarcopenia to predict 12-month mortality in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Cohort study including older adult patients with cancer in treatment (any stage of the disease or treatment) at a reference hospital for oncological care. Socio-demographic, clinical, and anthropometric data, muscle mass, and physical function variables (handgrip strength [HGS] and gait speed [GS]) were collected. Skeletal muscle quantity and quality were assessed by computed tomography at the L3. Sarcopenia was diagnosed according to the EWGSP2. ECOG-PS and all-cause mortality were evaluated. The Cox proportional hazards model was calculated.

RESULTS

We evaluated 159 patients (69 years old, 55% males). Low performance (ECOG-PS ≥ 2) was found in 23.3%, 35.8% presented sarcopenia, and 22.0% severe sarcopenia. ECOG-PS ≥ 2 was not an independent predictor of mortality. Sarcopenia, severe sarcopenia, and probable sarcopenia has increased by 3.25 (confidence interval, CI 95% 1.55-6.80), 2.64 (CI 95% 1.23-5.67), and 2.81 (CI 95% 1.30-6.07) times the risk of mortality, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sarcopenia, but not ECOG-PS, was a predictor of mortality. Therefore, ECOG-PS was not similar to sarcopenia to predict mortality in patients with cancer.

Differential scanning calorimetry of lupin and soy proteins

Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) was used to study the 7S and 11S globulin fractions extracted from lupin seed (Lupinus luteus) flour. In agreement with previous work on other lupin species, the isolate showed three denaturation peaks compared to the two observed with soy. By comparison with the isolated globulin fractions, the denaturation peaks at the two higher temperatures in the lupin isolate were assigned to the 11S and 7S globulins. The denaturation temperature of the lupin 7S globulin was about 10 K higher than that for the corresponding soy globulin, whereas the values for the 11S globulin were similar. All globulins displayed increasing thermal stability with decreasing moisture contents. Possible reasons for the differences in behaviour of soy and lupin protein isolates are discussed.