Evidence Hub

Muscle matters: Prognostic implications of malnutrition and muscle health parameters in patients with cancer. A secondary analysis of a randomised trial

T. Olpe, C. Wunderle, L. Bargetzi, P. Tribolet, A. Laviano, Z. Stanga, C. M. Prado, B. Mueller et al.

Clinical Nutrition, 2024

269 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Low muscle mass and malnutrition are independently associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes in patients with cancer. However, it is not yet clear which parameter is most indicative of these risks. This study investigates the prognostic significance of different parameters reflecting malnutrition and muscle health in a well-characterised oncology population at nutritional risk.

METHODS

This preplanned secondary analysis included patients with cancer from a Swiss-wide, randomised-controlled nutritional trial. We investigated associations among malnutrition markers (i.e., malnutrition diagnosis based on modified Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, albumin concentration) and muscle health markers (i.e., hand grip strength, computed tomography (CT)-based muscle mass and radiodensity) with 180-day all-cause mortality (primary outcome).

RESULTS

We included 269 patients with a main admission diagnosis of cancer and available CT scans. In a mutually adjusted model, four parameters contributed to risk assessment including modified malnutrition diagnosis (GLIM) (HR 1.78 (95%CI 1.17 to 2.69), p = 0.007, AUC 0.58), low albumin concentration (HR 1.58 (95%CI 1.08 to 2.31), p = 0.019, AUC 0.62), low handgrip strength (HR 2.05 (95%CI 1.43 to 2.93), p = 0.001, AUC 0.62) and low muscle radiodensity (HR 1.39 (95%CI 0.90 to 2.16), p = 0.139, AUC 0.63). Combining these parameters resulted in a model with high prognostic power regarding 180-day…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 269 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free