The impact of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer

Efthymios Papadopoulos; Andy Kin On Wong; Sharon Hiu Ching Law; Lindsey Ze Jing Zhang; Henriette Breunis; Urban Emmenegger; Shabbir M. H. Alibhai

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286381

Abstract

Introduction

Sarcopenia is common in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and has been largely assessed opportunistically through computed-tomography (CT) scans, excluding measures of muscle function. Therefore, the impact of a comprehensive assessment of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in men with mCRPC is poorly understood. The objectives of this study were to comprehensively assess sarcopenia through CT scans and measures of muscle function and examine its impact on severe treatment toxicity, time to first emergency room (ER) visit, disease progression, and overall mortality in men initiating chemotherapy or androgen receptor-targeted axis (ARAT) therapy for mCRPC.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of men with mCRPC at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between July 2015-May 2021. Participants were classified as sarcopenic if they had CT-based low muscle mass or low muscle density, a grip strength and gait speed score of <35.5kg and <0.8m/s, respectively, prior to treatment initiation. The impact of sarcopenia on severe treatment toxicity was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to determine the impact of sarcopenia on risk of visiting the ER, prostate-specific antigen progression, radiographic progression, and overall mortality.

Results

A total of 110 men (mean age: 74.6) were included in the analysis. At baseline, 30 (27.3%) were classified as sarcopenic. Sarcopenia was a significant predictor of severe toxicity (aOR = 6.26, 95%CI = 1.17–33.58, P = 0.032) and ER visits (aHR = 4.41, 95%CI = 1.26–15.43, p = 0.020) in men initiating ARAT but not in men initiating chemotherapy. Sarcopenia was also a predictor of radiographic progression (aHR = 2.39, 95%CI = 1.06–5.36, p = 0.035) and overall mortality (aHR = 2.44, 95%CI = 1.17–5.08, p = 0.018) regardless of treatment type.

Conclusions

Baseline sarcopenia predicts radiographic progression and overall mortality in men with mCRPC regardless of the type of treatment and may also predict severe treatment toxicity and ER visits in men initiating ARAT.

Citation: Papadopoulos E, Wong AKO, Law SHC, Zhang LZJ, Breunis H, Emmenegger U, et al. (2023) The impact of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381

Editor: Hiroshi Kaji, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, JAPAN

Received: March 29, 2023; Accepted: May 16, 2023; Published: June 1, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Papadopoulos et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data cannot be shared publicly because of sensitive patient information. Data are available from the University Health Network Research Ethics Board (contact via email: reb@uhnresearch.ca) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding: This work was supported by the Prostate Cancer Fight Foundation / Ride for Dad.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Sarcopenia is a geriatric syndrome that traditionally describes the progressive loss of muscle mass [1]. Since 2010, the definition of sarcopenia has been updated to include measures of muscle function, such as muscle strength and physical performance, in addition to muscle mass [2]. Several studies in oncology have opportunistically assessed sarcopenia through computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, without including measures of muscle function, suggesting that sarcopenia is a prognosticator of anti-cancer drug toxicity [3] and overall mortality [4].

This opportunistic imaging-based method of assessing sarcopenia has gained attention in the prostate cancer (PC) setting, particularly, in men with metastatic castrate-resistance PC (mCRPC), a population that commonly exhibits profound impairments in muscle mass due to previous castration-inducing cancer treatments [5, 6] and advanced disease that is associated with increased muscle catabolic signaling [7].

Several studies in men with mCRPC have demonstrated that CT-based low skeletal muscle quantity/mass or muscle quality at the level of the 3^rd lumbar vertebra, notably also of the psoas muscle, are associated with a higher risk of grade I-II neutropenia during chemotherapy [8], disease progression [9, 10], and overall mortality [9, 11, 12]. Although these studies provided promising evidence of the role of sarcopenia in predicting clinical and disease outcomes in men with mCRPC, there was no consensus on the skeletal muscle measure (e.g., mass versus quality) that could best predict outcomes. More importantly, the definition of sarcopenia that was adopted by previous work in men with mCRPC [8–12] did not include measures of muscle function in addition to measures of skeletal muscle mass, whereas the latter are part of the updated definition of sarcopenia [2, 13, 14].

Muscle function for the purposes of evaluating sarcopenia includes assessment of muscle strength through grip strength and physical performance through gait speed or other tests, such as the Short Physical Performance Battery or Time-Up-and-Go Test [13]. Measures of muscle function are prognosticators of overall mortality [15], treatment modification [16], and complications [17] in older adults with cancer, and have been shown to better predict adverse outcomes than lean or muscle mass in non-oncology populations [18, 19].

Given that sarcopenia has been largely assessed opportunistically but not rigorously in oncology and particularly in men with mCRPC due to the lack of muscle function measures, the objectives of this study were as follows: a) to comprehensively assess sarcopenia using measures of muscle mass and function; and b) to examine the impact of sarcopenia on the time to the first emergency room (ER) visit, severe treatment toxicity, disease progression, and overall mortality in men with mCRPC.

Methods

Study population and design

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective multicentre observational study that was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, the Odette Cancer Centre, the Juravinski Cancer Centre and the Kingston Regional Cancer Centre in Ontario, Canada from July 2015 to April 2019 [20]. The objective of the original study was to assess treatment toxicity in men with mCRPC receiving chemotherapy or ARAT.

The inclusion criteria are published elsewhere [20]. In brief, the study included men ≥ 65 years old with histologically confirmed, radiologically documented metastatic PC with castrate testosterone levels who were initiating first chemotherapy treatment (docetaxel) or ARAT (enzalutamide or abiraterone). Participants who were starting ARAT were eligible to participate if they had not previously received chemotherapy. Participants were ineligible if they had a life expectancy of < 3 months, were not proficient in English, or had a neuropsychiatric disorder that interfered with participating in the study. Recruitment and completion of a baseline assessment occurred prior to treatment initiation for all participants. The baseline assessment involved collection of sociodemographic and disease characteristics, comorbidity information, and evaluation of grip strength and gait speed. Subsequently, participants were followed over time to provide information on potential treatment toxicities.

Study procedures

For the purposes of this secondary analysis, an amendment was submitted to the Research Ethics Board to i) collect data on disease progression and overall mortality from the time of the baseline assessment until May 2021 and ii) retrieve a CT scan for each participant ≤ 6 months prior to treatment initiation. Given that access to CT scans from other sites was not feasible, this secondary analysis included only participants at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Although participants had provided written informed consent form for the original study, the requirement for obtaining a separate consent for this secondary analysis was waived. The use of additional data for the present study was approved by the Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board (Study ID: 1162) and Research Ethics Board at the University Health Network (Study ID: 15–9075.5).

Outcomes

Study outcomes comprised severe treatment toxicity, time to the first ER visit, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, radiographic progression, and overall mortality.

Severe treatment toxicity (i.e., grade 3+) was assessed during the original study every 3 weeks for participants on chemotherapy and every 1 to 3 months for participants on ARAT using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. All severe toxicities were recorded by the research coordinator based on interviews with patients and clinicians and chart review. The time to the first ER visit was assessed through medical records during the original study. PSA and radiographic progression were assessed through participants’ medical records from treatment initiation until treatment discontinuation or loss to follow up until May 2021. PSA and radiographic progression were determined using the Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria [21], in line with previous studies [9, 10]. Overall mortality was assessed from treatment initiation until date of death until May 2021 and was confirmed through the Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Registry supplemented by obituary searches for participants with no mortality date (i.e., “alive”) per the Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Registry.

Assessment and definition of sarcopenia

Sarcopenia was operationalized as a dichotomous variable (sarcopenic/non-sarcopenic) based on meeting the following two criteria: a) muscle weakness (<35.5kg) through grip strength and slowness (<0.8m/s) through gait speed per the Sarcopenia Definitions and Outcomes Consortium (SDOC) [19]; and b) low muscle mass or low muscle quality at the level of the 3^rd lumbar vertebra as described.

The research coordinator assessed both grip strength and gait speed at baseline, prior to treatment initiation. Grip strength was assessed three times in the dominant hand and the highest value was recorded. Gait speed was determined using the 4-meter walk and was expressed in m/s. An abdominal CT scan ≤ 6 months prior to treatment initiation was used for each participant to quantify muscle mass and muscle quality at the level of the 3^rd lumbar vertebra using 5 contiguous slices (0.82 x 0.82 x 2.5mm voxel size) centred symmetrically to the midpoint of L3, as determined using the 3D Slicer software [22]. Skeletal muscle mass at the L3 level is considered the gold standard for assessing sarcopenia through CT scans [23] as it correlates strongly with fat free mass [24] and is an independent prognosticator of adverse outcomes in adults with cancer [23, 25]. Muscle segmentation and quantification were performed using a histogram-based fully automated iterative threshold-seeking algorithm to optimize threshold selection for separating muscle from surrounding bone and fat. Location- and size-restricted organ-removal post-processing was performed since organs showed similar density values as muscle. Segmented areas smaller than 250 pixels were removed as suspected noise, with 3D connectivity between adjacent-slice muscle segmentations checked to ensure integrity of these noise-related island removal steps. This method was adapted from Wong et al [26] and applied within Jupyter Notebooks (Python 3.9). Manual corrections were performed on incorrect segmentations by exporting bone, muscle, and fat tags into SliceOmatic software (TomoVision, Montreal, Canada), with corrections re-imported back into Python for final metric computations. The automated algorithm was applied to all images to segment all muscle groups present within each slice. Manual corrections on Slice-O-Matic (TomoVision, Montreal, Canada) were completed by two members of the research team (EP & LZ) using a region-growing algorithm, restricting the Hounsfield unit (HU) range between -29 to +150 to further refine muscle mass and -190 to -30 for intra-muscular adipose tissue volumes, as suggested previously [24].

Final corrected segmentations were used to quantify muscle cross-sectional area (in cm²) and muscle density in HUs (Fig 1). Data from the 5 slices for each participant were averaged, and the entire cross-sectional area was divided by the patient’s square of body height (in metres) to obtain the skeletal muscle index (SMI) that was used to quantify muscle mass/quantity. Muscle quality was expressed in HUs to represent the magnitude of fat infiltration in the skeletal muscle based on skeletal muscle density (SMD). Low muscle mass for patients with a body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m² was defined as having a SMI value of < 43cm²/m², whereas for men with a BMI ≥25 kg/m² a SMI value of <53 cm²/m² was used [27]. Low muscle quality for men with a BMI <25 kg/m² was defined as a HU value of <41, whereas for men with a BMI ≥25 kg/m² a HU value of <33 was used [27].

Download:

Fig 1. Assessment of total L3 level muscle mass and intramuscular fat.

A) Raw L3-level CT central slice (0.82 x 0.82 x 2.5 mm) depicting muscle in dark grey (organs are also shown in dark grey) and fat in light grey. B) L3-level muscle, intramuscular fat, and bone segmentations achieved using the fully-automated algorithm. C) L3-level muscle, intramuscular fat, and bone segmentations after manual correction of automated outputs from B, using Slice-O-Matic software. Skeletal muscle segmentations are shown in red, fat in yellow, and bone in purple. Note: Processing of the image using the automated algorithm (B) resulted in mislabeling of some organs as muscle or fat. These inaccuracies were corrected using Slice-O-Matic (TomoVision, Montreal, Canada) (C).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381.g001

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were summarized using means and standard deviations or the median and interquartile range as appropriate. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and proportions. Baseline characteristics between participants with and without sarcopenia were compared using independent sample t-tests and chi-square tests for continuous and categorical data, respectively.

Univariate and multivariable models were developed to study the associations between sarcopenia and study outcomes (treatment toxicity, time to first ER visit, PSA progression, radiographic progression, and overall mortality).

Logistic regression was used to determine the associations between sarcopenia and treatment toxicity. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models were used to assess the impact of sarcopenia on time to first ER visit, PSA progression, radiographic progression, and overall time to all-cause mortality. Covariates in multivariable analyses included variables that were not in the causal pathway for sarcopenia (e.g., instrumental activities of daily living or Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 [28]), had data missingness ≤10%, and were associated at p<0.05 with the outcome variable in the univariate analysis, apart from age that was included as a continuous variable in all multivariable models regardless of the univariate analyses. The proportional hazards assumption was assessed using visual techniques. An interaction term Sarcopenia by Treatment (i.e., ARAT vs. chemotherapy) was included in all multivariable models. A separate analysis by treatment type was performed when the interaction was marginally significant given our small sample. A natural log transformation was applied to covariates that were not normally distributed. Although ALP was missing in 10.9% of cases, it was included in the analysis given its prognostic value in PC-related outcomes [29]. Analysis of all-cause mortality included n = 99 participants given that n = 11 participants had re-enrolled in the study after transitioning from ARAT to chemotherapy. However, these 11 participants were included in the analysis of all other study outcomes and their sarcopenia status was reassessed prior to chemotherapy.

Results

A total of 131 patients initiating chemotherapy or ARAT had participated in the original study, of whom 116 had an available CT scan ≤6 months prior to treatment initiation. Six (n = 6) participants were excluded due to missing grip strength and/or gait speed, leaving a total of 110 participants [mean age (SD): 74.6 (7.1) years] in the analysis, most of whom (57.3%) were initiating ARAT [abiraterone (16.4%); enzalutamide (40.9%)] (Table 1). Low grip strength was observed in the majority of the cohort (67.3%). Slowness was present in 32.7% of participants. Low SMI and low SMD were found in 82.7% and 78.2% of participants, respectively, whereas 27.3% of participants were classified as sarcopenic (Table 1). Chemotherapy was a more common treatment option for patients with sarcopenia. Apart from treatment type, no significant differences were found in clinical characteristics between patients with and without sarcopenia (Table 1). At baseline, the prevalence of hypertension was significantly higher in patients with sarcopenia, whereas congestive heart failure was more common in patients without sarcopenia (Table 1). Baseline differences in lactate dehydrogenase and hemoglobin between groups may indicate a more aggressive disease and inflammation in patients with sarcopenia. S1 Table in S1 File presents the number of events for all study outcomes. Specifically, 40.9% of participants visited the ER at least once during the study period, 38.2% experienced at least one grade 3+ toxicity, 60.0% had PSA progression, 45.5% had radiographic progression, while 64.6% of participants died from any cause during the study period.

Download:

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381.t001

Impact of sarcopenia on severe treatment toxicity

Table 2 lists the associations between sarcopenia and severe treatment toxicity. Sarcopenia was a significant predictor of severe treatment toxicity in the univariate model (OR = 3.27, 95%CI = 1.34–8.02, p = 0.009). The interaction of sarcopenia by treatment type did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.069). However, given that the interaction approached the level of significance and our small sample, a separate analysis was performed by treatment type (i.e., ARAT vs. chemotherapy) (S2 Table in S1 File). Sarcopenia was associated with a significantly higher risk of severe treatment toxicity in the ARAT (OR = 6.26, 95%CI = 1.17–33.58, p = 0.032) but not the chemotherapy group (OR = 0.87, 95%CI = 0.26–2.96, p = 0.82). No other significant predictors of severe treatment toxicity were observed in the multivariable analysis.

Download:

Table 2. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression of the impact of sarcopenia on severe treatment toxicity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381.t002

Impact of sarcopenia on the time to first emergency room visit

Table 3 lists the associations between sarcopenia and the time to the first ER visit during the study period. The median time to first visit to the ER was 6.6 weeks and 108.6 weeks for sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic participants, respectively (Fig 2a). Sarcopenia was an important predictor of visiting the ER (HR = 3.68, 95%CI = 1.92–7.05, p<0.001) in the univariate analysis. Separate multivariable analyses were performed by treatment given an interaction of marginal significance (p = 0.053) for sarcopenia by treatment (S3 Table in S1 File). Participants with sarcopenia initiating an ARAT had a significantly higher risk of visiting the ER (HR = 4.41, 95%CI = 1.26–15.43, p = 0.020) compared with non-sarcopenic participants. However, sarcopenia was not a predictor of ER visits in participants initiating chemotherapy (HR = 1.07, 95%CI = 0.45–2.52, p = 0.88).

Download:

Fig 2. The associations between sarcopenia and A) time to the first emergency room visit, B) PSA progression, C) radiographic progression, and D) overall mortality.

Survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier plots and was compared using the log-rank test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381.g002

Download:

Table 3. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression of the impact of sarcopenia on the time to the first emergency room visit.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381.t003

Impact of sarcopenia on PSA progression

Fig 2b shows that sarcopenic participants experienced PSA progression earlier compared with their non-sarcopenic counterparts. Specifically, the median time to PSA progression for sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic participants was 4 months and 17 months, respectively (p<0.001). Sarcopenia was significantly associated with PSA progression in the univariate analysis (HR = 2.77, 95%CI = 1.54–4.98, p<0.001) and although this association was also evident in the multivariable analysis (HR = 1.77, 95%CI = 0.91–3.48, p = 0.095), it was no longer significant likely due to the small sample size (Table 4). In the multivariable analysis, only initiating chemotherapy rather than ARAT was a significant predictor of PSA progression in this cohort (HR = 3.04, 95%CI = 1.45–6.35, p = 0.003) (Table 4). The interaction of sarcopenia by treatment type was not significant (p = 0.94).

Download:

Table 4. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression of the impact of sarcopenia on PSA progression.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381.t004

Impact of sarcopenia on radiographic progression

Fig 2c demonstrates that participants with sarcopenia achieved radiographic progression earlier compared with non-sarcopenic participants. The median time to radiographic progression for sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic participants was 11 months and 24 months, respectively (p<0.001). Sarcopenia was a significant prognosticator of radiographic progression in the multivariable analysis (HR = 2.39, 95%CI = 1.06–5.36, p = 0.035) (Table 5). Additional predictors of radiographic progression included initiating chemotherapy versus ARAT (HR = 4.55, 95%CI = 1.68–12.35, p = 0.003) and higher creatinine levels (HR = 3.78, 95%CI = 1.61–8.86, p = 0.002) (Table 5). The interaction of sarcopenia by treatment type was not significant (p = 0.73).

Download:

Table 5. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression of the impact of sarcopenia on radiographic progression.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381.t005

Impact of sarcopenia on overall mortality

Participants without sarcopenia had a prolonged survival than participants with sarcopenia. The median time to overall mortality for sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic participants was 14 months and 37 months, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig 2d). Sarcopenia was associated with a higher risk of overall mortality in the univariate (HR = 2.99, 95%CI = 1.73–5.18, p<0.001) which was preserved in the multivariable (HR = 2.44, 95%CI = 1.17–5.08, p = 0.018) analysis (Table 6). Age per decade (HR = 1.97, 95%CI = 1.29–3.02, p = 0.002) and initiating chemotherapy versus ARAT (HR = 3.15, 95%CI = 1.77–5.61, p<0.001) were additional predictors of overall mortality in the multivariable analysis (Table 6). The interaction of sarcopenia by treatment type was not significant (p = 0.21).

Download:

Table 6. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression of the impact of sarcopenia on overall mortality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381.t006

Discussion

The aim of this secondary analysis of a prospective observational study [20] was to comprehensively assess sarcopenia in men with mCRPC initiating chemotherapy or an ARAT and examine its impact on clinically relevant outcomes.

Previous studies in men with PC have assessed sarcopenia based on CT scans using the entire cross-sectional skeletal muscle area at the level of the 3^rd lumbar vertebra, or of the psoas muscle [8–12, 30]. Although this opportunistic method provides accurate estimates of muscle mass and density, it omits other important elements of sarcopenia, such as measures of muscle function that have been included in the updated definition per expert study groups on sarcopenia [2, 14, 19, 31]. Exclusion of muscle function measures from the definition of sarcopenia may substantially alter the proportion of participants who are classified as sarcopenic. For example, in line with previous studies in PC [10, 30], CT-based sarcopenia was found in the present study in 82.7% of patients. However, inclusion of measures of muscle function decreased the proportion of patients with sarcopenia to 27.3%. Additionally, sarcopenia in previous studies was assessed based on CT-derived muscle mass indicated by low SMI while muscle quality was examined separately. Muscle quality, however, appears to influence muscle function [32] and is included in the definition of sarcopenia according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People [2]. Therefore, in our study, participants who exhibited low muscle strength and slowness in addition to low muscle mass or low muscle quality were classified as sarcopenic.

Meta-analytic evidence of 31 studies in patients with cancer demonstrates that CT-based low muscle mass is a predictor of more severe toxicity than patients with normal muscle mass [3]. Measures of muscle function have also been associated with treatment toxicity in older adults with cancer [33]. Sarcopenia in our cohort was associated with severe treatment toxicity among patients initiating an ARAT but not among those initiating chemotherapy. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample, are hypothesis-generating and warrant further research.

Sarcopenia is associated with numerous adverse effects in older adults, including falls and fractures [34], hospitalizations [35], and may contribute to insulin resistance [36] and frailty [28], thereby increasing the risk of additional health-related adversities that may require immediate medical attention. Meta-analytic evidence of 2,832 older adults without cancer suggests that sarcopenia increases the risk of hospitalization [35]. In oncology, evidence on the impact of sarcopenia on health care utilization is limited with contradictory findings [37]. We found that participants initiating ARAT with sarcopenia had a significantly higher risk of visiting the ER compared with their non-sarcopenic counterparts. Nonetheless, a significant association between sarcopenia and the risk of visiting the ER was not observed in participants who were starting on chemotherapy. The lack of the association in the chemotherapy group may be a result of the small sample or other reasons that warrant further research.

Previous studies in men with mCRPC have found that sarcopenia measures are associated with disease progression [9, 10]. Specifically, Pak and colleagues found that patients with low muscle mass had shorter PSA progression-free survival and radiographic progression-free survival than patients with higher muscle mass based on median values [9]. Similarly, evidence from another study found that low skeletal muscle volume was a significant prognosticator of tumor progression. Our study corroborates previous evidence on the associations between sarcopenia and disease progression in men with mCRPC. Sarcopenic participants achieved PSA progression and radiographic progression earlier compared with their non-sarcopenic counterparts as indicated by the survival curves and the log rank test. In the adjusted analysis, sarcopenia was not a significant predictor of PSA progression possibly due to the issue of power. However, sarcopenia was a significant prognosticator of radiographic progression along with initiation of chemotherapy and higher creatinine levels. The exact mechanisms that precipitate the associations between sarcopenia and disease progression cannot be elucidated due to the nature of this study. However, in the presence of sarcopenia, several biological factors may favor cancer progression, such as increased systemic inflammation [38], immunosenescence [39], insulin resistance [36], or altered pharmacokinetics that may influence response to cancer treatment [40, 41].

Sarcopenia in our cohort was significantly associated with overall mortality in line with meta-analytic evidence in oncology [4]. Notably, participants without sarcopenia survived ~2 years longer compared with sarcopenic participants. Sarcopenia may increase the risk of all-cause mortality via numerous pathways that can either accelerate disease progression or decrease physiologic reserves that may limit mobility, expedite frailty and potentially disability. Another possible mechanism is that sarcopenia is associated with more rapid loss of fitness, limiting use of downstream life-prolonging treatments. A limitation of our study is that we did not examine these downstream treatments. In our cohort, initiating chemotherapy was associated with all study outcomes. Considering clinical sequencing of these drugs, this indicates that patients who are treated with chemotherapy have more advanced disease rather than chemotherapy is worse than ARAT.

Our findings are clinically relevant and highlight the importance of assessing and managing sarcopenia in clinical practice and warrant further research. Given the prognostic value of sarcopenia, an important question is how clinicians can efficiently and reliably assess sarcopenia in clinical practice. CT scan-based measures may be impractical to use in daily clinical practice. Alternatively, clinicians may choose to use simple and well-validated tests, such as grip strength and gait speed to assess sarcopenia in the clinical setting, adhering to the SDOC definition of sarcopenia [19, 31]. However, muscle-related parameters are central to the definition of sarcopenia and should also be assessed. Efforts to mitigate or reverse sarcopenia are of utmost importance for improving patient quality of life and potential clinically-relevant outcomes. In a systematic review of cancer survivors by Cao and colleagues, six of the seven exercise trials found that exercise increased skeletal muscle mass from baseline and compared to controls [42]. Additionally, meta-analytic evidence of 11 randomized controlled trials demonstrated that exercise, specifically resistance training improved muscle function and lean body mass in cancer survivors [43]. In addition to exercise, adequate protein ingestion is essential for increasing muscle protein synthesis [44] and mitigating anabolic resistance [45] in older patients. Therefore, clinicians are strongly encouraged to refer patients with sarcopenia and those at risk to qualified exercise professionals (Exercise Physiologist or Registered Kinesiologist) and dietitians.

The greatest strength of this study is the comprehensive definition of sarcopenia which involved measures of muscle mass and function. Additionally, assessment of muscle mass and quality through CT scans was obtained from the average of 5 slices which may provide a more accurate representation of SMI and SMD at the 3^rd lumbar vertebra. The greatest limitation of this study is the small sample, which may have diminished the impact of sarcopenia on several study outcomes, as evidenced by wide confidence intervals around some estimates. The limited sample also precluded an analysis by ARAT type to examine potential differences of the associations between sarcopenia and study outcomes. Additionally, albumin and lactate dehydrogenase were not included in multivariable analyses due to substantial data missingness that would further reduce our sample. Another limitation is the lack of exercise or physical activity data during the study period which may have altered some sarcopenia measures, particularly muscle strength and slowness. An inherent limitation from a clinical standpoint is the use of CT scans to quantify skeletal muscle mass and density. As described in the methods, skeletal muscle mass and density were assessed using a fully-automated algorithm, and any incorrect algorithm-derived segmentations were corrected manually using a commercially available, specialized software. However, these processes may be impractical in clinical practice due to time constraints and/or lack of expertise. These limitations urge the importance of developing reliable algorithms that can automatically quantify muscle mass and density without the need of manual editing through a medical imaging software. Lastly, another limitation is the lack of reasons for ER use.

Conclusion

Sarcopenia defined by low muscle mass or quality in addition to low muscle strength and slowness predicts radiographic progression and overall mortality in men with mCRPC initiating chemotherapy or ARAT. Additionally, sarcopenia may predict severe treatment toxicity and ER visits prior to ARAT initiation for mCRPC. Larger studies are warranted to elucidate the impact of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in men with mCRPC.

Supporting information

S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286381.s001

(DOCX)

References

1. Rosenberg IH. Sarcopenia: origins and clinical relevance. J Nutr. 1997;127(5 Suppl):990S–1S. pmid:9164280
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. 2010;39(4):412–23. pmid:20392703
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Huiskamp LFJ, Chargi N, Devriese LA, May AM, Huitema ADR, de Bree R. The Predictive Value of Low Skeletal Muscle Mass Assessed on Cross-Sectional Imaging for Anti-Cancer Drug Toxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(11). pmid:33238530
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Shachar SS, Williams GR, Muss HB, Nishijima TF. Prognostic value of sarcopenia in adults with solid tumours: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2016;57:58–67. pmid:26882087
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Pezaro C, Mukherji D, Tunariu N, Cassidy AM, Omlin A, Bianchini D, et al. Sarcopenia and change in body composition following maximal androgen suppression with abiraterone in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(2):325–31. pmid:23807167
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Fischer S, Clements S, McWilliam A, Green A, Descamps T, Oing C, et al. Influence of abiraterone and enzalutamide on body composition in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2020;25:100256. pmid:33307509
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Fairman CM, Lønbro S, Cardaci TD, VanderVeen BN, Nilsen TS, Murphy AE. Muscle wasting in cancer: opportunities and challenges for exercise in clinical cancer trials. JCSM Rapid Communications. 2021;5(1):52–67. pmid:36118249
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Cushen SJ, Power DG, Murphy KP, McDermott R, Griffin BT, Lim M, et al. Impact of body composition parameters on clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2016;13:e39–e45. pmid:28531567
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Pak S, Kim MS, Park EY, Kim SH, Lee KH, Joung JY. Association of Body Composition With Survival and Treatment Efficacy in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol. 2020;10:558. pmid:32363164
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Stangl-Kremser J, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Andrea D, Korn SM, Pones M, Kramer G, et al. Assessment of body composition in the advanced stage of castration-resistant prostate cancer: special focus on sarcopenia. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23(2):309–15. pmid:31745255
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Ohtaka A, Aoki H, Nagata M, Kanayama M, Shimizu F, Ide H, et al. Sarcopenia is a poor prognostic factor of castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel therapy. Prostate Int. 2019;7(1):9–14. pmid:30937292
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Bauckneht M, Lai R, D’Amico F, Miceli A, Donegani MI, Campi C, et al. Opportunistic skeletal muscle metrics as prognostic tools in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients candidates to receive Radium-223. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36(4):373–83. pmid:35044592
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyere O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48(4):601.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Zanker J, Sim M, Anderson K, Balogun S, Brennan-Olsen SL, Dent E, et al. Consensus guidelines for sarcopenia prevention, diagnosis and management in Australia and New Zealand. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022. pmid:36349684
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Ezzatvar Y, Ramirez-Velez R, Saez de Asteasu ML, Martinez-Velilla N, Zambom-Ferraresi F, Izquierdo M, et al. Physical Function and All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults Diagnosed With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021;76(8):1447–53. pmid:33421059
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Papadopoulos E, Helal AA, Jin R, Monginot S, Berger A, Romanovsky L, et al. The impact of pre-treatment muscle strength and physical performance on treatment modification in older adults with cancer following comprehensive geriatric assessment. Age Ageing. 2022;51(7). pmid:35776670
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Verweij NM, Schiphorst AH, Pronk A, van den Bos F, Hamaker ME. Physical performance measures for predicting outcome in cancer patients: a systematic review. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(12):1386–91. pmid:27718777
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Schaap LA, Koster A, Visser M. Adiposity, muscle mass, and muscle strength in relation to functional decline in older persons. Epidemiol Rev. 2013;35:51–65. pmid:23221972
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Cawthon PM, Manini T, Patel SM, Newman A, Travison T, Kiel DP, et al. Putative Cut-Points in Sarcopenia Components and Incident Adverse Health Outcomes: An SDOC Analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(7):1429–37. pmid:32633824
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Alibhai SMH, Breunis H, Hansen AR, Gregg R, Warde P, Timilshina N, et al. Examining the ability of the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to predict toxicity in older men receiving chemotherapy or androgen-receptor-targeted therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer. 2021. pmid:33798267
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I, Morris M, Sternberg CN, Carducci MA, et al. Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(7):1148–59. pmid:18309951
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1323–41. pmid:22770690
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. de Jong C, Chargi N, Herder GJM, van Haarlem SWA, van der Meer F, van Lindert ASR, et al. The association between skeletal muscle measures and chemotherapy-induced toxicity in non-small cell lung cancer patients. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13(3):1554–64. pmid:35301821
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Mourtzakis M, Prado CM, Lieffers JR, Reiman T, McCargar LJ, Baracos VE. A practical and precise approach to quantification of body composition in cancer patients using computed tomography images acquired during routine care. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008;33(5):997–1006. pmid:18923576
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Prado CM, Baracos VE, McCargar LJ, Reiman T, Mourtzakis M, Tonkin K, et al. Sarcopenia as a determinant of chemotherapy toxicity and time to tumor progression in metastatic breast cancer patients receiving capecitabine treatment. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(8):2920–6. pmid:19351764
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Wong AKO, Szabo E, Erlandson M, Sussman MS, Duggina S, Song A, et al. A Valid and Precise Semiautomated Method for Quantifying Intermuscular Fat Intramuscular Fat in Lower Leg Magnetic Resonance Images. J Clin Densitom. 2020;23(4):611–22. pmid:30352783
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Martin L, Birdsell L, Macdonald N, Reiman T, Clandinin MT, McCargar LJ, et al. Cancer cachexia in the age of obesity: skeletal muscle depletion is a powerful prognostic factor, independent of body mass index. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(12):1539–47. pmid:23530101
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Cesari M, Landi F, Vellas B, Bernabei R, Marzetti E. Sarcopenia and physical frailty: two sides of the same coin. Front Aging Neurosci. 2014;6:192. pmid:25120482
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Li D, Lv H, Hao X, Hu B, Song Y. Prognostic value of serum alkaline phosphatase in the survival of prostate cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:3125–39. pmid:30214305
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Ikeda T, Ishihara H, Iizuka J, Hashimoto Y, Yoshida K, Kakuta Y, et al. Prognostic impact of sarcopenia in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2020;50(8):933–9. pmid:32303747
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Bhasin S, Travison TG, Manini TM, Patel S, Pencina KM, Fielding RA, et al. Sarcopenia Definition: The Position Statements of the Sarcopenia Definition and Outcomes Consortium. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(7):1410–8. pmid:32150289
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. McGregor RA, Cameron-Smith D, Poppitt SD. It is not just muscle mass: a review of muscle quality, composition and metabolism during ageing as determinants of muscle function and mobility in later life. Longev Healthspan. 2014;3(1):9. pmid:25520782
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Bruijnen CP, van Harten-Krouwel DG, Koldenhof JJ, Emmelot-Vonk MH, Witteveen PO. Predictive value of each geriatric assessment domain for older patients with cancer: A systematic review. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019;10(6):859–73. pmid:30926250
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Yeung SSY, Reijnierse EM, Pham VK, Trappenburg MC, Lim WK, Meskers CGM, et al. Sarcopenia and its association with falls and fractures in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019;10(3):485–500. pmid:30993881
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Zhang X, Zhang W, Wang C, Tao W, Dou Q, Yang Y. Sarcopenia as a predictor of hospitalization among older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):188. pmid:30134867
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Shou J, Chen PJ, Xiao WH. Mechanism of increased risk of insulin resistance in aging skeletal muscle. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2020;12:14. pmid:32082422
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Beaudart C, Drost R, Evers S, Paulus ATG, Hiligsmann M. Associations between muscle mass/strength and healthcare costs/use for patients with cancer: A systematic literature review. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2022;33:100633. pmid:36113192
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Bano G, Trevisan C, Carraro S, Solmi M, Luchini C, Stubbs B, et al. Inflammation and sarcopenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2017;96:10–5. pmid:28041587
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Nelke C, Dziewas R, Minnerup J, Meuth SG, Ruck T. Skeletal muscle as potential central link between sarcopenia and immune senescence. EBioMedicine. 2019;49:381–8. pmid:31662290
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Schmulenson E, Zimmermann N, Muller L, Kapsa S, Sihinevich I, Jaehde U. Influence of the skeletal muscle index on pharmacokinetics and toxicity of fluorouracil. Cancer Med. 2022. pmid:35941837
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Prado CM, Baracos VE, McCargar LJ, Mourtzakis M, Mulder KE, Reiman T, et al. Body composition as an independent determinant of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy toxicity. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(11):3264–8. pmid:17545532
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Cao A, Ferrucci LM, Caan BJ, Irwin ML. Effect of Exercise on Sarcopenia among Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(3). pmid:35159052
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Strasser B, Steindorf K, Wiskemann J, Ulrich CM. Impact of resistance training in cancer survivors: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(11):2080–90. pmid:23669878
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Ford KL, Arends J, Atherton PJ, Engelen M, Goncalves TJM, Laviano A, et al. The importance of protein sources to support muscle anabolism in cancer: An expert group opinion. Clin Nutr. 2022;41(1):192–201. pmid:34891022
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Moore DR. Keeping older muscle "young" through dietary protein and physical activity. Adv Nutr. 2014;5(5):599S–607S.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Rosenberg IH. Sarcopenia: origins and clinical relevance. J Nutr. 1997;127(5 Suppl):990S–1S. pmid:9164280
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. 2010;39(4):412–23. pmid:20392703
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Huiskamp LFJ, Chargi N, Devriese LA, May AM, Huitema ADR, de Bree R. The Predictive Value of Low Skeletal Muscle Mass Assessed on Cross-Sectional Imaging for Anti-Cancer Drug Toxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(11). pmid:33238530
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Shachar SS, Williams GR, Muss HB, Nishijima TF. Prognostic value of sarcopenia in adults with solid tumours: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2016;57:58–67. pmid:26882087
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Pezaro C, Mukherji D, Tunariu N, Cassidy AM, Omlin A, Bianchini D, et al. Sarcopenia and change in body composition following maximal androgen suppression with abiraterone in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(2):325–31. pmid:23807167
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Fischer S, Clements S, McWilliam A, Green A, Descamps T, Oing C, et al. Influence of abiraterone and enzalutamide on body composition in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2020;25:100256. pmid:33307509
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Fairman CM, Lønbro S, Cardaci TD, VanderVeen BN, Nilsen TS, Murphy AE. Muscle wasting in cancer: opportunities and challenges for exercise in clinical cancer trials. JCSM Rapid Communications. 2021;5(1):52–67. pmid:36118249
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Cushen SJ, Power DG, Murphy KP, McDermott R, Griffin BT, Lim M, et al. Impact of body composition parameters on clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2016;13:e39–e45. pmid:28531567
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Pak S, Kim MS, Park EY, Kim SH, Lee KH, Joung JY. Association of Body Composition With Survival and Treatment Efficacy in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol. 2020;10:558. pmid:32363164
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Stangl-Kremser J, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Andrea D, Korn SM, Pones M, Kramer G, et al. Assessment of body composition in the advanced stage of castration-resistant prostate cancer: special focus on sarcopenia. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23(2):309–15. pmid:31745255
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Ohtaka A, Aoki H, Nagata M, Kanayama M, Shimizu F, Ide H, et al. Sarcopenia is a poor prognostic factor of castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel therapy. Prostate Int. 2019;7(1):9–14. pmid:30937292
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Bauckneht M, Lai R, D’Amico F, Miceli A, Donegani MI, Campi C, et al. Opportunistic skeletal muscle metrics as prognostic tools in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients candidates to receive Radium-223. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36(4):373–83. pmid:35044592
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyere O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48(4):601.
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Zanker J, Sim M, Anderson K, Balogun S, Brennan-Olsen SL, Dent E, et al. Consensus guidelines for sarcopenia prevention, diagnosis and management in Australia and New Zealand. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022. pmid:36349684
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] PubMed/NCBI

[55] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Ezzatvar Y, Ramirez-Velez R, Saez de Asteasu ML, Martinez-Velilla N, Zambom-Ferraresi F, Izquierdo M, et al. Physical Function and All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults Diagnosed With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021;76(8):1447–53. pmid:33421059
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] PubMed/NCBI

[59] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Papadopoulos E, Helal AA, Jin R, Monginot S, Berger A, Romanovsky L, et al. The impact of pre-treatment muscle strength and physical performance on treatment modification in older adults with cancer following comprehensive geriatric assessment. Age Ageing. 2022;51(7). pmid:35776670
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] PubMed/NCBI

[63] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Verweij NM, Schiphorst AH, Pronk A, van den Bos F, Hamaker ME. Physical performance measures for predicting outcome in cancer patients: a systematic review. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(12):1386–91. pmid:27718777
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] PubMed/NCBI

[67] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Schaap LA, Koster A, Visser M. Adiposity, muscle mass, and muscle strength in relation to functional decline in older persons. Epidemiol Rev. 2013;35:51–65. pmid:23221972
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] PubMed/NCBI

[71] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Cawthon PM, Manini T, Patel SM, Newman A, Travison T, Kiel DP, et al. Putative Cut-Points in Sarcopenia Components and Incident Adverse Health Outcomes: An SDOC Analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(7):1429–37. pmid:32633824
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Alibhai SMH, Breunis H, Hansen AR, Gregg R, Warde P, Timilshina N, et al. Examining the ability of the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to predict toxicity in older men receiving chemotherapy or androgen-receptor-targeted therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer. 2021. pmid:33798267
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I, Morris M, Sternberg CN, Carducci MA, et al. Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(7):1148–59. pmid:18309951
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1323–41. pmid:22770690
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. de Jong C, Chargi N, Herder GJM, van Haarlem SWA, van der Meer F, van Lindert ASR, et al. The association between skeletal muscle measures and chemotherapy-induced toxicity in non-small cell lung cancer patients. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13(3):1554–64. pmid:35301821
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Mourtzakis M, Prado CM, Lieffers JR, Reiman T, McCargar LJ, Baracos VE. A practical and precise approach to quantification of body composition in cancer patients using computed tomography images acquired during routine care. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008;33(5):997–1006. pmid:18923576
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Prado CM, Baracos VE, McCargar LJ, Reiman T, Mourtzakis M, Tonkin K, et al. Sarcopenia as a determinant of chemotherapy toxicity and time to tumor progression in metastatic breast cancer patients receiving capecitabine treatment. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(8):2920–6. pmid:19351764
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Wong AKO, Szabo E, Erlandson M, Sussman MS, Duggina S, Song A, et al. A Valid and Precise Semiautomated Method for Quantifying Intermuscular Fat Intramuscular Fat in Lower Leg Magnetic Resonance Images. J Clin Densitom. 2020;23(4):611–22. pmid:30352783
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Martin L, Birdsell L, Macdonald N, Reiman T, Clandinin MT, McCargar LJ, et al. Cancer cachexia in the age of obesity: skeletal muscle depletion is a powerful prognostic factor, independent of body mass index. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(12):1539–47. pmid:23530101
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] PubMed/NCBI

[107] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Cesari M, Landi F, Vellas B, Bernabei R, Marzetti E. Sarcopenia and physical frailty: two sides of the same coin. Front Aging Neurosci. 2014;6:192. pmid:25120482
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Li D, Lv H, Hao X, Hu B, Song Y. Prognostic value of serum alkaline phosphatase in the survival of prostate cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:3125–39. pmid:30214305
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Ikeda T, Ishihara H, Iizuka J, Hashimoto Y, Yoshida K, Kakuta Y, et al. Prognostic impact of sarcopenia in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2020;50(8):933–9. pmid:32303747
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Bhasin S, Travison TG, Manini TM, Patel S, Pencina KM, Fielding RA, et al. Sarcopenia Definition: The Position Statements of the Sarcopenia Definition and Outcomes Consortium. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(7):1410–8. pmid:32150289
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. McGregor RA, Cameron-Smith D, Poppitt SD. It is not just muscle mass: a review of muscle quality, composition and metabolism during ageing as determinants of muscle function and mobility in later life. Longev Healthspan. 2014;3(1):9. pmid:25520782
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Bruijnen CP, van Harten-Krouwel DG, Koldenhof JJ, Emmelot-Vonk MH, Witteveen PO. Predictive value of each geriatric assessment domain for older patients with cancer: A systematic review. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019;10(6):859–73. pmid:30926250
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Yeung SSY, Reijnierse EM, Pham VK, Trappenburg MC, Lim WK, Meskers CGM, et al. Sarcopenia and its association with falls and fractures in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019;10(3):485–500. pmid:30993881
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Zhang X, Zhang W, Wang C, Tao W, Dou Q, Yang Y. Sarcopenia as a predictor of hospitalization among older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):188. pmid:30134867
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Shou J, Chen PJ, Xiao WH. Mechanism of increased risk of insulin resistance in aging skeletal muscle. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2020;12:14. pmid:32082422
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Beaudart C, Drost R, Evers S, Paulus ATG, Hiligsmann M. Associations between muscle mass/strength and healthcare costs/use for patients with cancer: A systematic literature review. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2022;33:100633. pmid:36113192
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Bano G, Trevisan C, Carraro S, Solmi M, Luchini C, Stubbs B, et al. Inflammation and sarcopenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2017;96:10–5. pmid:28041587
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Nelke C, Dziewas R, Minnerup J, Meuth SG, Ruck T. Skeletal muscle as potential central link between sarcopenia and immune senescence. EBioMedicine. 2019;49:381–8. pmid:31662290
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Schmulenson E, Zimmermann N, Muller L, Kapsa S, Sihinevich I, Jaehde U. Influence of the skeletal muscle index on pharmacokinetics and toxicity of fluorouracil. Cancer Med. 2022. pmid:35941837
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Prado CM, Baracos VE, McCargar LJ, Mourtzakis M, Mulder KE, Reiman T, et al. Body composition as an independent determinant of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy toxicity. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(11):3264–8. pmid:17545532
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Cao A, Ferrucci LM, Caan BJ, Irwin ML. Effect of Exercise on Sarcopenia among Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(3). pmid:35159052
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] PubMed/NCBI

[167] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Strasser B, Steindorf K, Wiskemann J, Ulrich CM. Impact of resistance training in cancer survivors: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(11):2080–90. pmid:23669878
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] PubMed/NCBI

[171] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Ford KL, Arends J, Atherton PJ, Engelen M, Goncalves TJM, Laviano A, et al. The importance of protein sources to support muscle anabolism in cancer: An expert group opinion. Clin Nutr. 2022;41(1):192–201. pmid:34891022
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[173] View Article

[174] PubMed/NCBI

[175] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Moore DR. Keeping older muscle "young" through dietary protein and physical activity. Adv Nutr. 2014;5(5):599S–607S.
View Article
Google Scholar

[177] View Article

[178] Google Scholar

The impact of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer

The impact of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer

Correction

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Methods

Study population and design

Study procedures

Outcomes

Assessment and definition of sarcopenia

Statistical analysis

Results

Impact of sarcopenia on severe treatment toxicity

Impact of sarcopenia on the time to first emergency room visit

Impact of sarcopenia on PSA progression

Impact of sarcopenia on radiographic progression

Impact of sarcopenia on overall mortality

Discussion

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 File.

References