Comparison of absolute and relative handgrip strength to predict cancer prognosis: A prospective multicenter cohort study.

Body Mass Index Colorectal Neoplasms Hand Strength / physiology Humans Lung Neoplasms Prospective Studies
Cancer Handgrip Muscle mass Prognosis

Journal

Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)
ISSN: 1532-1983
Titre abrégé: Clin Nutr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8309603

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2022
Historique:
received: 22 04 2022
revised: 19 05 2022
accepted: 05 06 2022
pubmed: 30 6 2022
medline: 5 8 2022
entrez: 29 6 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Decreased muscle strength, as measured by absolute handgrip strength (HGS), is associated with poor outcomes in patients with cancer. The ability of HGS to predict cancer prognosis may be affected by its absolute or relative representation. It is not clear whether absolute or relative HGS is more appropriate for the prognostic assessment of cancer. We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 16,150 cancer patients. The exposure variables were absolute and relative HGS values. Relative HGS was standardized according to height, weight, body mass index (BMI), and mid-arm circumference (MAC). The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to determine the relationship between HGS-related indices and survival. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between HGS-related indices and 90-day outcomes. Both absolute and relative HGS were independent prognostic factors for cancer. All HGS-related indices are applicable to lung and colorectal cancer. Both absolute and MAC-adjusted HGS are applicable for breast cancer. For the prognostic assessment of hepatobiliary and urologic cancers, only height-adjusted HGS is applicable. Compared with absolute HGS, height-adjusted HGS had a better prediction performance (0.007; 95% CI, 0.006, 0.008; log-rank P < 0.001), particularly in lung and colorectal cancer. However, the prediction performance of weight/BMI/MAC-adjusted HGS was worse than that of absolute HGS by (-0.015; 95% CI, -0.020, -0.011; log-rank P < 0.001), (-0.028; 95% CI, -0.033, -0.023; log-rank P < 0.001), and (-0.019; 95% CI, -0.022, -0.016; log-rank P < 0.001), respectively. Low absolute and relative HGS were significantly associated with poor 90-day outcomes in patients with cancer. Height-adjusted HGS was better than absolute HGS in predicting 90-day outcomes, particularly in lung cancer. Among the HGS-related indices, height-adjusted HGS has an optimal value in predicting the short- and long-term survival of cancer patients, especially those with lung cancer.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND & AIMS
Decreased muscle strength, as measured by absolute handgrip strength (HGS), is associated with poor outcomes in patients with cancer. The ability of HGS to predict cancer prognosis may be affected by its absolute or relative representation. It is not clear whether absolute or relative HGS is more appropriate for the prognostic assessment of cancer.
METHODS
We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 16,150 cancer patients. The exposure variables were absolute and relative HGS values. Relative HGS was standardized according to height, weight, body mass index (BMI), and mid-arm circumference (MAC). The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to determine the relationship between HGS-related indices and survival. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between HGS-related indices and 90-day outcomes.
RESULTS
Both absolute and relative HGS were independent prognostic factors for cancer. All HGS-related indices are applicable to lung and colorectal cancer. Both absolute and MAC-adjusted HGS are applicable for breast cancer. For the prognostic assessment of hepatobiliary and urologic cancers, only height-adjusted HGS is applicable. Compared with absolute HGS, height-adjusted HGS had a better prediction performance (0.007; 95% CI, 0.006, 0.008; log-rank P < 0.001), particularly in lung and colorectal cancer. However, the prediction performance of weight/BMI/MAC-adjusted HGS was worse than that of absolute HGS by (-0.015; 95% CI, -0.020, -0.011; log-rank P < 0.001), (-0.028; 95% CI, -0.033, -0.023; log-rank P < 0.001), and (-0.019; 95% CI, -0.022, -0.016; log-rank P < 0.001), respectively. Low absolute and relative HGS were significantly associated with poor 90-day outcomes in patients with cancer. Height-adjusted HGS was better than absolute HGS in predicting 90-day outcomes, particularly in lung cancer.
CONCLUSION
Among the HGS-related indices, height-adjusted HGS has an optimal value in predicting the short- and long-term survival of cancer patients, especially those with lung cancer.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2022.06.011 PMID: 35767913
pubmed: 35767913
pii: S0261-5614(22)00194-7
doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2022.06.011
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1636-1643

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Hailun Xie (H)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Guotian Ruan (G)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Li Deng (L)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Heyang Zhang (H)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Yizhong Ge (Y)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Qi Zhang (Q)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Shiqi Lin (S)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Mengmeng Song (M)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Xi Zhang (X)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Xiaoyue Liu (X)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Xiangrui Li (X)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Kangping Zhang (K)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Ming Yang (M)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Meng Tang (M)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China.

Wen Hu (W)

Clinical Nutrition Department, Sichuan University West China Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

Min Weng (M)

Department of Clinical Nutrition, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China.

Hanping Shi (H)

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100038, China; Beijing International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Cancer Metabolism and Nutrition, Beijing, 100038, China; Key Laboratory of Cancer FSMP for State Market Regulation, Beijing, 100038, China. Electronic address: shihp@ccmu.edu.cn.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Mesures épidémiologiques › Biométrie › Anthropométrie › Indice de masse corporelle › Comparison of absolute and relative handgrip...
questionsmedicales.fr › Maladies de l'appareil digestif › Maladies gastro-intestinales › Maladies intestinales › Maladies du rectum › Tumeurs colorectales › Comparison of absolute and relative handgrip...
questionsmedicales.fr › Phénomènes physiologiques de l'appareil locomoteur et du système nerveux › Phénomènes physiologiques du système locomoteur › Force musculaire › Force de la main › Comparison of absolute and relative handgrip...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › Comparison of absolute and relative handgrip...
questionsmedicales.fr › Maladies de l'appareil respiratoire › Tumeurs de l'appareil respiratoire › Tumeurs du poumon › Comparison of absolute and relative handgrip...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Caractéristiques des études épidémiologiques › Études épidémiologiques › Études de cohortes › Études prospectives › Comparison of absolute and relative handgrip...