Validation of a new prognostic body composition parameter in cancer patients

Background & aims: Estimation errors associated with bioelectric impedance evaluation may affect the accuracy of body composition and its prognostic value. We evaluated the prognostic value of a new body composition parameter (Nutrigram®) obtained from bioimpedance vectorial analysis-derived body cell mass and its association with nutritional and functional status. Design: Data of Italian and German cancer patients observed prospectively until death were used. Multivariable models (adjusted for age, gender, hydration status, performance status, and disease's stage) were built in both cohorts to assess the association between body composition outcome parameters (low fat-free mass [FFM], <15 [females] and <17 [males] kg/m2; low standardized phase angle [SPA], <−1.65; low Nutrigram®, <510 [females] and <660 [males] mg/24 h/m) and 1-year all-cause mortality, low body mass index (BMI; <20 [<70 years] and <22 [≥70 years] kg/m2), clinically significant weight loss (WL; ≥10% in 6 months) and low handgrip strength (HG; <20 [females] and <30 [males] kg). Results: Low Nutrigram® was independently associated with mortality in both Italian (HR = 1.84 [95%CI, 1.18–2.86]; P = 0.007) and German cohorts (HR = 1.52 [95%CI, 1.17–2.07]; P = 0.008). Low FFMI and low SPA did not predict survival in the German cohort. In patients with low Nutrigram®, worse nutritional and functional status were observed in both study populations. Performance of models addressing the study endpoints showed substantial consistency with both cohorts, particularly of those including low Nutrigram®. Conclusions: We validated a new prognostic body composition parameter, which is easier to interpret than standard nutritional parameters and may be useful for identifying cancer patients at nutritional risk, requiring early nutritional support

Muscle weakness as an additional criterion for grading sarcopenia-related prognosis in patients with cancer

Background: Low muscle strength has been pointed out as a key characteristic of sarcopenia, but the prognostic significance of muscle function next to reduced skeletal muscle mass (SMM) in patients with cancer has been scantily investigated. Methods: Data on muscle strength by handgrip (HG) dynamometry and total-body SMM estimated by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) of Italian and German patients with cancer observed prospectively until death or censoring were analysed (N = 1076). Patients were stratified in four risk categories based on low HG (60 months for both). After adjusting for sex, age, body mass index and percentage of weight loss, disease's stage, performance status and type of cancer, compared to reference category (normal HG and SMM; N = 210) the hazard ratios were: low SMM/normal HG (N = 342), 0.83 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.67–1.02] (p = 0.073); normal SMM/low HG (N = 158), 1.19 [95% CI, 1.07–1.32] (p = 0.002); low SMM/low HG (N = 366), 1.39 [95% CI, 1.27–1.53] (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Muscle weakness was found to be a more powerful predictor of survival than BIA-estimated SMM and should be considered as an additional key feature of sarcopenia in patients with cancer