Prognostic role of body composition parameters in gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer patients from the EXPAND trial.
Computed tomography
Gastric cancer
Gastroesophageal junction cancer
Mean muscle attenuation
Prognosis
Sarcopenia
Smooth muscle index
Journal
Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle
ISSN: 2190-6009
Titre abrégé: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101552883
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
22
05
2019
revised:
29
06
2019
accepted:
08
07
2019
pubmed:
30
8
2019
medline:
29
5
2021
entrez:
30
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Body fat and/or muscle composition influences prognosis in several cancer types. For advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer, we investigated which body composition parameters carry prognostic information beyond well-established clinical parameters using robust model selection strategy such that parameters identified can be expected to generalize and to be reproducible beyond our particular data set. Then we modelled how differences in these parameters translate into survival outcomes. Fat and muscle parameters were measured on baseline computed tomography scans in 761 patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer from the phase III EXPAND trial, undergoing first-line chemotherapy. Cox regression analysis for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) included body composition parameters and clinical prognostic factors. All continuous variables were entered linearly into the model as there was no evidence of non-linear prognostic impact. For transferability, the final model included only parameters that were picked by Bayesian information criterion model selection followed by bootstrap analysis to identify the most robust model. Muscle and fat parameters formed correlation clusters without relevant between-cluster correlation. Mean muscle attenuation (MA) clusters with the fat parameters. In multivariate analysis, MA was prognostic for OS (P < 0.0001) but not for PFS, while skeletal muscle index was prognostic for PFS (P = 0.02) but not for OS. Worse performance status Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG 1/0), younger age (on a linear scale), and the number of metastatic sites were strong negative clinical prognostic factors for both OS and PFS. MA remained in the model for OS (P = 0.0001) following Bayesian information criterion model selection in contrast to skeletal muscle index that remained prognostic for PFS (P = 0.009). Applying stricter criteria for transferability, MA represented the only prognostic body composition parameter for OS, selected in >80% of bootstrap replicates. Finally, Cox model-derived survival curves indicated that large differences in MA translate into only moderate differences in expected OS in this cohort. Among body composition parameters, only MA has robust prognostic impact for OS. Data suggest that treatment approaches targeting muscle quality are unlikely to prolong OS noticeably on their own in advanced gastric cancer patients, indicating that multimodal approaches should be pursued in the future.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Body fat and/or muscle composition influences prognosis in several cancer types. For advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer, we investigated which body composition parameters carry prognostic information beyond well-established clinical parameters using robust model selection strategy such that parameters identified can be expected to generalize and to be reproducible beyond our particular data set. Then we modelled how differences in these parameters translate into survival outcomes.
METHODS
Fat and muscle parameters were measured on baseline computed tomography scans in 761 patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer from the phase III EXPAND trial, undergoing first-line chemotherapy. Cox regression analysis for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) included body composition parameters and clinical prognostic factors. All continuous variables were entered linearly into the model as there was no evidence of non-linear prognostic impact. For transferability, the final model included only parameters that were picked by Bayesian information criterion model selection followed by bootstrap analysis to identify the most robust model.
RESULTS
Muscle and fat parameters formed correlation clusters without relevant between-cluster correlation. Mean muscle attenuation (MA) clusters with the fat parameters. In multivariate analysis, MA was prognostic for OS (P < 0.0001) but not for PFS, while skeletal muscle index was prognostic for PFS (P = 0.02) but not for OS. Worse performance status Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG 1/0), younger age (on a linear scale), and the number of metastatic sites were strong negative clinical prognostic factors for both OS and PFS. MA remained in the model for OS (P = 0.0001) following Bayesian information criterion model selection in contrast to skeletal muscle index that remained prognostic for PFS (P = 0.009). Applying stricter criteria for transferability, MA represented the only prognostic body composition parameter for OS, selected in >80% of bootstrap replicates. Finally, Cox model-derived survival curves indicated that large differences in MA translate into only moderate differences in expected OS in this cohort.
CONCLUSIONS
Among body composition parameters, only MA has robust prognostic impact for OS. Data suggest that treatment approaches targeting muscle quality are unlikely to prolong OS noticeably on their own in advanced gastric cancer patients, indicating that multimodal approaches should be pursued in the future.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31464089
doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12484
pmc: PMC7015239
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
135-144Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Apr 20;34(12):1339-44
pubmed: 26903572
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2017 May;9(5):369-382
pubmed: 28529552
Gastric Cancer. 2016 Jan;19(1):150-9
pubmed: 25421300
J Hepatol. 2015 Jul;63(1):131-40
pubmed: 25724366
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1998 Jul;85(1):115-22
pubmed: 9655763
Breast. 2019 Apr;44:144-152
pubmed: 30780085
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2018 Dec;9(7):1200-1208
pubmed: 30637983
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jun 1;4(6):798-804
pubmed: 29621380
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018 Feb;72(2):288-296
pubmed: 29242526
Lancet Oncol. 2013 May;14(6):490-9
pubmed: 23594786
Br J Cancer. 2012 May 8;106(10):1583-6
pubmed: 22510747
Clin Nutr. 2016 Dec;35(6):1386-1393
pubmed: 27102408
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017 Aug;8(4):527-528
pubmed: 28675689
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017 Apr;8(2):317-326
pubmed: 27897432
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017 Dec;8(6):1081-1083
pubmed: 29098794
Cancer Res. 2018 Apr 15;78(8):1906-1912
pubmed: 29654153
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Apr 20;31(12):1539-47
pubmed: 23530101
Ann Oncol. 2017 Sep 1;28(9):2107-2118
pubmed: 28911059
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 1;21(11):2070-6
pubmed: 12775731
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2004 Dec;97(6):2333-8
pubmed: 15310748
Int J Urol. 2015 May;22(5):455-61
pubmed: 25631365
BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb 7;5(1):e000194
pubmed: 29527315
Clin Nutr. 2017 Feb;36(1):11-48
pubmed: 27637832
Oncologist. 2011;16(1):71-81
pubmed: 21212435
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019 Feb;10(1):199-206
pubmed: 30666831
Med Oncol. 2012 Jun;29(2):1005-9
pubmed: 21399996
Gerontology. 2009;55(2):217-23
pubmed: 19060453
Lancet Oncol. 2008 Jul;9(7):629-35
pubmed: 18539529
Obes Rev. 2002 Aug;3(3):141-6
pubmed: 12164465
BMC Med Imaging. 2019 Apr 27;19(1):32
pubmed: 31029093
Transl Oncol. 2016 Jun;9(3):256-61
pubmed: 27267846
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Nov;22(12):3946-53
pubmed: 25712800
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020 Feb;11(1):135-144
pubmed: 31464089
Oncotarget. 2017 Sep 28;8(57):97090-97100
pubmed: 29228595
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017 Aug;8(4):630-638
pubmed: 28513088