Muscle Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer Patients: Comparing Different Assessment Techniques
Author Information
Author(s): Jiménez-Sánchez Andrés, Soriano-Redondo María Elisa, Roque-Cuéllar María del Carmen, García-Rey Silvia, Valladares-Ayerbes Manuel, Pereira-Cunill José Luis, García-Luna Pedro Pablo, Esposito Gabriella
Primary Institution: Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain
Hypothesis
All techniques may detect similar patterns in the study sample, but direct interchangeability may not exist neither intra-technique nor inter-technique.
Conclusion
Bedside techniques adequately detected patterns in skeletal muscle biomarkers, but lacked agreement with a reference technique in the study sample using the current methodology.
Supporting Evidence
- Computed tomography is a gold-standard body composition technique.
- Bedside techniques like BIA and nutritional ultrasound are faster and cheaper.
- Muscle atrophy is part of the GLIM diagnostic criteria for malnutrition.
- Obesity was associated with higher muscle mass in all techniques.
- Participants with malnutrition had worse muscle biomarkers.
Takeaway
This study looked at how well different methods can measure muscle health in cancer patients, finding that while they can show similar trends, they don't always agree with each other.
Methodology
This cross-sectional study included 156 colorectal cancer outpatients who underwent CT, BIA, and nutritional ultrasound on the same day.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to the inclusion of patients with possible BIA artifacts.
Limitations
The study was conducted in a single center, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Participant Demographics
Median age was 65.2 years, with 48.1% female participants; 26.3% had obesity and 7.0% had malnutrition.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p < 2.2 × 10−16
Confidence Interval
95%CI: 0.705, 0.825
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website