Next Article in Journal
PIM-1 Is Overexpressed at a High Frequency in Circulating Tumor Cells from Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Genetic and Microenviromental Heterogeneity as an Unexpected Reading Frame and Therapeutic Challenge
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/cancers12051187
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL Grade and Body Composition and Physical Function in Patients with Advanced Cancer

by
Ross D. Dolan
1,*,
Louise E. Daly
2,
Claribel Pl. Simmons
3,
Aoife M. Ryan
2,
Wei Mj. Sim
1,
Marie Fallon
3,
Derek G. Power
2,
Andrew Wilcock
4,
Matthew Maddocks
5,
Michael I. Bennett
6,
Caroline Usborne
7,
Barry J. Laird
3 and
Donald C. McMillan
1
1
Academic Unit of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK
2
School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, College of Science, Engineering and Food Science, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
3
Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH4 2XR, UK
4
University of Nottingham, Hayward House, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
5
Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care Policy & Rehabilitation, King’s College London, Bessemer Road, London SE5 9PJ, UK
6
Academic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Room 10.37, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds LS2 9LU, UK
7
Glan Clwyd Hospital, Bodelwyddan, Denbighshire LL18 5UJ, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2020, 12(5), 1187; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051187
Submission received: 8 April 2020 / Revised: 28 April 2020 / Accepted: 4 May 2020 / Published: 8 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Pathophysiology)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cancer remains one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide and the associated reduction in physical function has a marked impact on both quality of life and survival. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance status (ECOG-PS), modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), Body Mass Index/Weight Loss grade (BMI/WL grade), and Computerised Tomography (CT)-derived body composition measurement and physical function in patients with advanced cancer. Nine sites contributed prospective data on patient demographics, ECOG-PS, mGPS, physical function tests, and CT-derived body composition. Categorical variables were analysed using χ2 test for linear-by-linear association, or χ2 test for 2-by-2 tables. Associations were analysed using binary logistic regression. A total of 523 cancer patients (266 males, 257 females) were included in the final analysis and most had metastatic disease (83.2%). The median overall survival was 5.6 months. On multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, a high ECOG-PS remained independently associated with a low skeletal muscle index (p < 0.001), low skeletal muscle density (p < 0.05), and timed up and go test failure (p < 0.001). A high mGPS remained independently associated with a low skeletal muscle density (p < 0.05) and hand grip strength test failure (p < 0.01). A high BMI/WL grade remained independently associated with a low subcutaneous fat index (p < 0.05), low visceral obesity (p < 0.01), and low skeletal muscle density (p < 0.05). In conclusion, a high ECOG-PS and a high mGPS as outlined in the ECOG-PS/mGPS framework were consistently associated with poorer body composition and physical function in patients with advanced cancer.

1. Introduction

Cancer remains one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide and is responsible for 8.8 million deaths each year. In westernised countries, it has been estimated that one in three people will develop cancer in their lifetime and one in four will die from it [1,2].
The importance of cachexia syndrome, with escalating nutritional and functional decline leading to poor clinical outcomes, is well recognised [3]. However, how this complex syndrome is best defined is the subject of continuing debate. Clearly, defining any syndrome is difficult due to its multifaceted nature. However, in such circumstances one may resort to the duck test approach: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”. Such abductive reasoning has been commonly used to settle legal cases and more recently has gained popularity in artificial intelligence.
In the context of cancer cachexia, a number of factors have been shown to impact independently on quality of life (including functional and symptom scores) and survival. These include Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance status (ECOG-PS) and the systemic inflammatory response (modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, mGPS), both of which have been extensively validated [4,5,6,7]. More recently, based on an international consensus, body mass index/weight loss (BMI/WL) grades have been shown to impact independently on quality of life and survival [8,9,10].
Recently, these three criteria for the definition of cancer cachexia were directly compared and all three independently predicted survival in patients with advanced cancer [11]. However, BMI/WL grade was low risk in approximately 50% of patients and ECOG-PS and mGPS were independently associated with survival in this group. Therefore, to further investigate the clinical utility of these three criteria to define cachexia, the aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade, and Computerised Tomography (CT)-derived body composition and physical function tests in patients with advanced cancer.

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Patients

A biobank of data from patients with advanced cancer was analysed. All data were collected prospectively across 9 sites in the UK and Ireland (cancer centres, hospitals, and specialist palliative care units) over a five-year period (2011–2016) [9,11,12]. Eligible patients provided written informed consent, were adults, had advanced cancer including all cancer subtypes (defined as metastatic cancer with histological, cytological or radiological evidence, that was locally advanced, or receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent) and had the ability to comply with study procedures including provision of a venous blood sample (taken on the day of consent). Patients were either inpatients or outpatients, undergoing anti-cancer therapy with a palliative intent including best supportive care. The study had ethical approval in both the UK and Ireland (West of Scotland Ethics Committee UK: 18/WS/0001 (18/01/2018) and Cork Research Ethics Committee Ireland: ECM 4 (g) (03/03/2015)) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Furthermore, the study conformed to the STROBE guidelines for cohort studies [13].

2.1.1. Prognostic Markers

Patient’s age, sex, and clinicopathological characteristics were recorded within 3 months prior to study entry. Prognostic tools/factors validated in a recent systematic review by Simmons and co-workers were used in the analysis [14].
Patients were categorized according to their ECOG-PS into five district grades (grade 0–4) as previously described [15]. The mGPS was constructed as previously described (CRP ≤ 10 mg/L = 0, CRP > 10 mg/L & albumin ≥ 35 g/L = 1, CRP > 10 mg/L and albumin < 35 g/L = 2) [16,17]. An autoanalyzer was used to measure serum CRP (mg/L) and albumin (g/L) concentrations (Architect; Abbot Diagnostics, Maidenhead, UK). Patients were categorized according to the BMI-adjusted weight loss grade into one of five distinct weight loss grades (grades 0–4) as previously described [8,9].

2.1.2. Body Composition

CT images were obtained at the level of the third lumbar vertebra [18]. Patients whose scans were taken ≥ 3 months prior to study entry, who had significant movement artefact, or who were missing the region of interest were excluded. CT images were analysed using NIH Image J version 1.47 (U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA) or OsiriX software version 4.1.1 (OsiriX, Geneva, Switzerland). Both imaging software packages have been shown to provide excellent agreement for body composition measures [19]. Region of interest (ROI) measurements were made of visceral fat areas, subcutaneous fat areas (Table 1), and skeletal muscle areas (cm2) (Table 1) using standard Hounsfield Unit (HU) ranges (adipose tissue -190 to -30, and skeletal muscle -29 to +150). These were then normalised for height2 to create indices: total fat index (cm2/m2), subcutaneous fat index (cm2/m2), visceral fat index (cm2/m2), and skeletal muscle index (cm2/m2). Skeletal muscle radiodensity (HU) was measured from the same ROI used to calculate skeletal muscle index, as its mean HU.
Visceral obesity was defined by Doyle and colleagues as a visceral fat area >160cm2 for male patients and >80cm2 for female patients [23]. High subcutaneous fat was defined by Ebadi and colleagues as a subcutaneous fat index ≥ 50.0 cm2m2 in males and ≥42.0 cm2m2 in females [20]. Low skeletal muscle index was defined as described by Martin and colleagues, with a skeletal muscle index <43 cm2/m2 if BMI <25 kg/m2 and skeletal muscle index <53 cm2/m2 if BMI ≥25 kg/m2 in male patients and skeletal muscle index <41cm2/m2 in female patients [22]. Low skeletal muscle radiodensity was defined by Martin and colleagues as an skeletal muscle radiodensity <41HU in patients with BMI <25 kg/m2 and <33HU in patients with BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (Table 1) [22].
Two individuals performed scan measurements (Dolan and Daly). In order to assess accuracy, inter-rater reliability was measured in a test cohort of 20 patient images. Inter-class correlation coefficients were 0.986 for skeletal muscle area and 0.964 for skeletal muscle radiodensity. Investigators were blind to patient’s demographic and clinico-pathological status.

2.1.3. Physical Function

Eastern Cooperative Performance Status (ECOG-PS), timed up and go, two-minute walk, and hand grip strength tests, as well as the presence of metastases and weight loss over the preceding three months to study entry, were assessed by either the treating clinician or clinical research staff. Timed up and go test and two-minute walk test completion were recorded contemporaneously with completion being recorded as a test pass. A failure of timed up and go has previously been defined by Kear and co-workers for patients under 60 and by Rockwood and co-workers in patients over 60 [24,25,26]. A failure of the two-minute walk test has previously been defined by Bohannon and co-workers for male and female patients between 18 and 85 years of age [27]. A weak hand grip strength test was defined by Studenski and co-workers as <26 kg in men and <16 kg in women [28]. Patients who achieved a hand grip strength results below the above thresholds were deemed to have failed the hand grip strength test.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

Body composition measurements were presented as median and range and compared using Mann–Whitney or Kruskal–Wallis tests. Categorical variables were analysed using χ2 test for linear-by-linear association, or χ2 test for 2-by-2 tables.
Associations between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI-WL grades, body composition, physical function tests, and survival were analysed using univariate and a multivariate backward conditional approach. A p < 0.05 was applied to inclusion at each step in the multivariate analysis.
Missing data were excluded from analysis on a variable by variable basis. Two-tailed p values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 21.0. (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

A total of 523 patients (266 males, 257 females) satisfied the inclusion criteria. The relationship between clinicopathological characteristics, body composition, and physical function is shown in Table 2. The majority of patients were over 65 (56.8%), had a BMI >25 kg/m2 (50.1%), and had metastasis (83.2%). Gastrointestinal (34.4%) and lung (31.7%) cancers were the most common tumours. The median overall survival was 5.6 months (95% CI: 5.1–6.0 months). At the date of censoring, 318 patients (61%) were dead. Median follow-up time for patients that had died was 10.5 months (95% CI: 9.0–12.1 months).
The relationship between ECOG-PS and measures of body composition and physical function are shown in Table 3. ECOG-PS was significantly associated with skeletal muscle index (p < 0.05), skeletal muscle radiodensity (p < 0.001) and timed up and go (p < 0.001).
The relationship between mGPS and measures of body composition and physical function are shown in Table 4. mGPS was significantly associated with skeletal muscle radiodensity (p < 0.01), timed up and go test failure (p ≤ 0.001), and hand grip strength test failure (p < 0.01).
The relationship between BMI/WL grade and measures of body composition and physical function are shown in Table 5. BMI/WL grade was significantly associated with visceral obesity (p < 0.05) and skeletal muscle radiodensity (p < 0.01).
Low skeletal muscle radiodensity was significantly associated with timed up and go test failure (n = 192, p = 0.015) and hand grip strength failure (n = 100, p = 0.042).
The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade, and subcutaneous fat index in patients with advanced cancer is shown in Table 6. On multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, BMI/WL grade (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.40–0.97, p < 0.05) remained independently associated with a high subcutaneous fat index.
The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and high visceral obesity is shown in Table 6. On multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, BMI/WL grade (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.38–0.87, p < 0.01) remained independently associated with a high visceral obesity.
The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and low skeletal muscle index is shown in Table 6. On multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, ECOG-PS (OR 1.90, 95%CI 1.51–2.39, p < 0.001) remained independently associated with a low skeletal muscle index.
The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and low skeletal muscle radiodensity is shown in Table 6. On multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, ECOG-PS (OR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11–2.55, p < 0.05), mGPS (OR 1.32, 95%CI 1.01–1.73, p < 0.05) and BMI/WL grade (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.02–2.19, p < 0.05) remained independently associated with a low skeletal muscle radiodensity.
The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and timed up and go test is shown in Table 6. On multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, ECOG-PS (OR 5.84, 95%CI 3.79–9.00, p < 0.001) remained independently associated with timed up and go failure.
The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and hand grip strength is shown in Table 6. On multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, mGPS (OR 1.95, 95%CI 1.29–2.97, p < 0.01) remained independently associated with hand grip strength failure.

4. Discussion

Over the last decade or so there has been increasing interest in identifying objective criteria to define cancer cachexia. This has proven problematic since cancer cachexia is a syndrome impacting on quality of life, body composition, physical function, and survival. In the present study, candidate criteria were directly compared in terms of their relationship with measures of body composition and physical function. ECOG-PS and mGPS were consistently associated with low skeletal muscle mass and function and therefore, together with our previous study [11], both ECOG-PS and mGPS would appear to pass the duck test as criteria to define cancer cachexia.
In the present study, poor performance status was significantly associated with low skeletal muscle index, low skeletal muscle radiodensity, and timed up and go test failure but not hand grip strength test failure. Furthermore, high mGPS was significantly associated with low skeletal muscle radiodensity, timed up and go test failure, and hand grip strength test fail. In contrast, high BMI/WL grade was significantly associated with high subcutaneous fat index, high visceral obesity, and low skeletal muscle radiodensity. Therefore, BMI/WL grade appears to capture elements of the decline in fat mass. The present and previous [11] results clearly need to be repeated to prove the clinical utility of the ECOG-PS/mGPS framework. However, if this proves to be the case (and these observations are readily repeated) there are a number of important implications for the future diagnosis and treatment of cancer cachexia. The present results would suggest that in addition to ECOG-PS, mGPS is useful in defining the syndrome of cancer cachexia. Therefore, the ECOG/mGPS framework should be considered as part of routine assessment prior to treatment in patients with advanced cancer.
In the present study it was of interest that low skeletal muscle radiodensity was significantly associated with timed up and go test failure (p < 0.05) and hand grip strength test failure (p < 0.05). These results would be consistent with the results of a recent study by Williams and co-workers who reported that skeletal muscle radiodensity was related to physical function impairments including activities of daily living (ADL), climbing stairs, walking, and timed up and go [29]. Furthermore, the presence of systemic inflammatory response degrades the quality of the skeletal muscle [30]. If this were to be the case then it might be anticipated that downregulation of the systemic inflammatory response, compared with placebo, would result in better preservation of muscle density, muscle strength, and performance status. This hypothesis is the subject of a number of ongoing randomised clinical trials. For example, there is a randomised placebo controlled phase III trial underway of a multimodal intervention (exercise, nutrition, anti-inflammatory medication) in patients with advanced lung or pancreatic cancer undergoing anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent (NCT02330926) [31]. The aim of this trial is to prevent or attenuate loss of weight, muscle, and physical function using a multimodal intervention which is anti-inflammatory. The findings from the associated phase II trial provide grounds for optimism for the ongoing phase III trial [32].
In the present study, three criteria were considered to define cachexia. With reference to ECOG-PS this has long been considered a cornerstone of assessment by oncologists and palliative physicians. With the increasing integration of oncology and palliative care this is likely to remain an important part of the assessment of the patient with advanced cancer. It may be that other objective measurements of “real life” performance status will more consistently reflect ECOG-PS, such as activity trackers (e.g., Fitbit) [33,34,35]. With reference to the mGPS there has been in recent years extensive validation of its use in patients with advanced care, and routine assessment is now advocated [36,37]. Of the present criteria considered, it is the only one that is completely objective as it relies on two routine, laboratory-derived values. Indeed, it has been termed “laboratory cachexia” as its values become increasingly abnormal towards death [38] and the mGPS above has been used to define cancer cachexia [39,40]. There are other measures of the systemic inflammatory response that have been shown to have prognostic value, such as the neutrophil lymphocyte ratio which can be collected as part of the routine differential white cell count. However, such ratios have not been well defined and their relationship with the syndrome of cachexia has not been shown [7,41,42]. With reference to BMI/WL grade it is not clear whether this has additional value to other nutritional risk screening tools such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) that are in routine clinical use [36,40]. Therefore, further comparative studies are required to establish the value of BMI/WL grade as a measure of cachexia in patients with advanced cancer.
The findings of the present study may also help inform regulatory endpoints in the arena of trials treating cancer cachexia. To date there has been a lack of concordance in regulatory guidance between the EMA and FDA regarding endpoints [43] whilst previously agreed endpoints of skeletal muscle mass and function have not been realized in multiple clinical trials of varying agents [44,45,46,47]. It may be that moderating the systemic inflammatory response in patients with advanced cancer will produce more reproducible gains.
Limitations of the present study include that body composition measures and physical function test data were not available in all patients. In the present study the data were analysed according to clinically relevant criteria (previously reported to be associated with clinical outcomes such as survival) rather than statistical criteria. Specifically, categorical rather than continuous analysis was used and since only 10 out of 403 subjects passed the two-minute walk test this was excluded from further analysis. Furthermore, the cohort was relatively heterogenous with different cancer types and specific stages of disease. However, when further stratification of the results was carried out for both lung cancers and gastrointestinal cancers in particular (n ~180 each, Supplementary Tables S1 and S2), similar results were obtained on univariate and multivariate analysis to that of the combined cohort, suggesting that the relationships between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and skeletal muscle index, skeletal muscle density and physical function were not specific to cancer type. With reference to stage of disease, more than 80% of patients had metastatic disease on study entry and therefore the heterogeneity of this cohort would have been unlikely to confound the present results. Importantly, the present results are likely to represent the type of patient cohort being treated by both oncologist and palliative care physicians. Further work is required to define these relationships in specific tumour types and at specific stages of disease. Furthermore, objective ongoing measurements of physical function such as the use of Fitbit monitors would be of considerable interest.

5. Conclusions

In summary, a high ECOG-PS and a high mGPS as outlined in the ECOG-PS/mGPS framework were consistently associated with poorer body composition and physical function in patients with advanced cancer. The simplicity and clinical utility of this framework mean that it can be readily incorporated into the routine assessment of patients with advanced cancer.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/12/5/1187/s1, Table S1: The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and SMI, SMD and physical function in patients with advanced lung cancer (n = 177), Table S2: The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and SMI, SMD and physical function in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer (n = 180).

Author Contributions

R.D.D.: Study conceptualisation, scan analysis, data analysis, and drafting of the manuscript; L.E.D.: Scan analysis and drafting of the manuscript; C.P.S.: Data interpretation; A.M.R.: Supervision of scan analysis and assistance with drafting the manuscript; W.M.S.: Assistant in drafting of the manuscript; M.F.: Overall supervision and assistance with drafting of the manuscript; D.G.P.: Data interpretation; A.W.: Overall supervision and assistance with drafting of the manuscript; M.M.: Overall supervision and assistance with drafting of the manuscript; M.I.B.: Overall supervision and assistance with drafting of the manuscript; C.U.: Overall supervision and assistance with drafting of the manuscript; B.J.L.: Senior author who assisted in supervision of scan analysis, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript; D.C.M.: Senior author who assisted in supervision of scan analysis, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Medical Research Scotland (487FRG), the University of Glasgow, the University of Edinburgh, and University College Cork.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Douglas H Black for his assistance in training and validation of CT-derived body composition. The authors would also like to thank Samantha Cushen and Eadaoin Ni Bhuachallaare for their help with data collection in the Irish Cohort.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Abbreviations

ECOG-PSEastern Cooperative Performance Status
mGPSModified Glasgow Prognostic Score
BMI/WL gradeBody Mass Index/Weight Loss grade
CTComputerised Tomography
MUSTMalnutrition Universal Screening Tool
PG-SGAPatient Generated Subjective Global Assessment

References

  1. Bosanquet, N.; Sikora, K. The economics of cancer care in the UK. Lancet Oncol. 2004, 5, 568–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. World Health Organization. World Health Organization Cancer Fact Sheet. Available online: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/ (accessed on 10 April 2017).
  3. Fearon, K.; Strasser, F.; Anker, S.D.; Bosaeus, I.; Bruera, E.; Fainsinger, R.L.; Jatoi, A.; Loprinzi, C.; MacDonald, N.; Mantovani, G.; et al. Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: An international consensus. Lancet Oncol. 2011, 12, 489–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Simmons, C.P.; Koinis, F.; Fallon, M.T.; Fearon, K.C.; Bowden, J.; Solheim, T.S.; Gronberg, B.H.; McMillan, D.C.; Gioulbasanis, I.; Laird, B.J. Prognosis in advanced lung cancer--A prospective study examining key clinicopathological factors. Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2015, 88, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Laird, B.J.; Kaasa, S.; McMillan, D.C.; Fallon, M.T.; Hjermstad, M.J.; Fayers, P.; Klepstad, P. Prognostic factors in patients with advanced cancer: A comparison of clinicopathological factors and the development of an inflammation-based prognostic system. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 5456–5464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Laird, B.J.; Fallon, M.; Hjermstad, M.J.; Tuck, S.; Kaasa, S.; Klepstad, P.; McMillan, D.C. Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Differential Association With Performance Status and Systemic Inflammatory Response. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 2769–2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Dolan, R.D.; Laird, B.J.A.; Horgan, P.G.; McMillan, D.C. The prognostic value of the systemic inflammatory response in randomised clinical trials in cancer: A systematic review. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2018, 132, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Martin, L.; Senesse, P.; Gioulbasanis, I.; Antoun, S.; Bozzetti, F.; Deans, C.; Strasser, F.; Thoresen, L.; Jagoe, R.T.; Chasen, M.; et al. Diagnostic criteria for the classification of cancer-associated weight loss. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Daly, L.; Dolan, R.; Power, D.; Ni Bhuachalla, E.; Sim, W.; Fallon, M.; Cushen, S.; Simmons, C.; McMillan, D.C.; Laird, B.J.; et al. The relationship between the BMI-adjusted weight loss grading system and quality of life in patients with incurable cancer. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2020, 11, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Vagnildhaug, O.M.; Blum, D.; Wilcock, A.; Fayers, P.; Strasser, F.; Baracos, V.E.; Hjermstad, M.J.; Kaasa, S.; Laird, B.; Solheim, T.S.; et al. The applicability of a weight loss grading system in cancer cachexia: A longitudinal analysis. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017, 8, 789–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Dolan, R.D.; Daly, L.; Sim, W.M.J.; Fallon, M.; Ryan, A.; McMillan, D.C.; Laird, B.J. Comparison of the prognostic value of ECOG-PS, mGPS and BMI/WL: Implications for a clinically important framework in the assessment and treatment of advanced cancer. Clin. Nutr. (Edinburgh, Scotland) 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Daly, L.E.; Dolan, R.D.; Power, D.G.; Ni Bhuachalla, E.; Sim, W.; Cushen, S.J.; Fallon, M.; Simmons, C.; McMillan, D.C.; Laird, B.J.; et al. Determinants of quality of life in patients with incurable cancer. Cancer 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gotzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; Initiative, S. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 2007, 147, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Simmons, C.P.L.; McMillan, D.C.; McWilliams, K.; Sande, T.A.; Fearon, K.C.; Tuck, S.; Fallon, M.T.; Laird, B.J. Prognostic Tools in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2017, 53, 962–970.e910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Oken, M.M.; Creech, R.H.; Tormey, D.C.; Horton, J.; Davis, T.E.; McFadden, E.T.; Carbone, P.P. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 1982, 5, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Park, J.H.; Watt, D.G.; Roxburgh, C.S.; Horgan, P.G.; McMillan, D.C. Colorectal Cancer, Systemic Inflammation, and Outcome: Staging the Tumor and Staging the Host. Ann. Surg. 2016, 263, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. McMillan, D.C. An inflammation-based prognostic score and its role in the nutrition-based management of patients with cancer. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2008, 67, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Richards, C.H.; Roxburgh, C.S.; MacMillan, M.T.; Isswiasi, S.; Robertson, E.G.; Guthrie, G.K.; Horgan, P.G.; McMillan, D.C. The relationships between body composition and the systemic inflammatory response in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e41883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. van Vugt, J.L.; Levolger, S.; Gharbharan, A.; Koek, M.; Niessen, W.J.; Burger, J.W.; Willemsen, S.P.; de Bruin, R.W.; JN, I.J. A comparative study of software programmes for cross-sectional skeletal muscle and adipose tissue measurements on abdominal computed tomography scans of rectal cancer patients. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017, 8, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ebadi, M.; Martin, L.; Ghosh, S.; Field, C.J.; Lehner, R.; Baracos, V.E.; Mazurak, V.C. Subcutaneous adiposity is an independent predictor of mortality in cancer patients. Br. J. Cancer 2017, 117, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Prado, C.M.; Lieffers, J.R.; McCargar, L.J.; Reiman, T.; Sawyer, M.B.; Martin, L.; Baracos, V.E. Prevalence and clinical implications of sarcopenic obesity in patients with solid tumours of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts: A population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2008, 9, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martin, L.; Birdsell, L.; Macdonald, N.; Reiman, T.; Clandinin, M.T.; McCargar, L.J.; Murphy, R.; Ghosh, S.; Sawyer, M.B.; Baracos, V.E. Cancer cachexia in the age of obesity: Skeletal muscle depletion is a powerful prognostic factor, independent of body mass index. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 1539–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Doyle, S.L.; Bennett, A.M.; Donohoe, C.L.; Mongan, A.M.; Howard, J.M.; Lithander, F.E.; Pidgeon, G.P.; Reynolds, J.V.; Lysaght, J. Establishing computed tomography-defined visceral fat area thresholds for use in obesity-related cancer research. Nutr. Res. (N.Y.) 2013, 33, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bohannon, R.W. Reference values for the timed up and go test: A descriptive meta-analysis. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2006, 29, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Rockwood, K.; Awalt, E.; Carver, D.; MacKnight, C. Feasibility and measurement properties of the functional reach and the timed up and go tests in the Canadian study of health and aging. J. Gerontol. Ser. ABiol. Sci. Med Sci. 2000, 55, M70–M73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Kear, B.M.; Guck, T.P.; McGaha, A.L. Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test: Normative Reference Values for Ages 20 to 59 Years and Relationships With Physical and Mental Health Risk Factors. J. Prim. Care Community Health 2017, 8, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Bohannon, R.W.; Wang, Y.C.; Gershon, R.C. Two-minute walk test performance by adults 18 to 85 years: Normative values, reliability, and responsiveness. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil 2015, 96, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Studenski, S.A.; Peters, K.W.; Alley, D.E.; Cawthon, P.M.; McLean, R.R.; Harris, T.B.; Ferrucci, L.; Guralnik, J.M.; Fragala, M.S.; Kenny, A.M.; et al. The FNIH sarcopenia project: Rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med Sci. 2014, 69, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Williams, G.R.; Deal, A.M.; Muss, H.B.; Weinberg, M.S.; Sanoff, H.K.; Nyrop, K.A.; Pergolotti, M.; Shachar, S.S. Skeletal muscle measures and physical function in older adults with cancer: Sarcopenia or myopenia? Oncotarget 2017, 8, 33658–33665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Abbass, T.; Dolan, R.D.; Laird, B.J.; McMillan, D.C. The Relationship between Imaging-Based Body Composition Analysis and the Systemic Inflammatory Response in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2019, 11, 1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Solheim, T.S.; Laird, B.J.A.; Balstad, T.R.; Bye, A.; Stene, G.; Baracos, V.; Strasser, F.; Griffiths, G.; Maddocks, M.; Fallon, M.; et al. Cancer cachexia: Rationale for the MENAC (Multimodal-Exercise, Nutrition and Anti-inflammatory medication for Cachexia) trial. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2018, 8, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Solheim, T.S.; Laird, B.J.A.; Balstad, T.R.; Stene, G.B.; Bye, A.; Johns, N.; Pettersen, C.H.; Fallon, M.; Fayers, P.; Fearon, K.; et al. A randomized phase II feasibility trial of a multimodal intervention for the management of cachexia in lung and pancreatic cancer. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017, 8, 778–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gresham, G.; Schrack, J.; Gresham, L.M.; Shinde, A.M.; Hendifar, A.E.; Tuli, R.; Rimel, B.J.; Figlin, R.; Meinert, C.L.; Piantadosi, S. Wearable activity monitors in oncology trials: Current use of an emerging technology. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2018, 64, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Gresham, G.; Hendifar, A.E.; Spiegel, B.; Neeman, E.; Tuli, R.; Rimel, B.J.; Figlin, R.A.; Meinert, C.L.; Piantadosi, S.; Shinde, A.M. Wearable activity monitors to assess performance status and predict clinical outcomes in advanced cancer patients. NPJ Digit Med. 2018, 1, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Hall, C.C.; Norris, L.; Dixon, L.; Cook, J.; Maddocks, M.; Graham, C.; Tuck, S.; Haraldsdottir, E.; Brown, D.; Lloyd, A.; et al. A randomised, phase II, unblinded trial of an Exercise and Nutrition-based Rehabilitation programme (ENeRgy) versus standard care in patients with cancer: Feasibility trial protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018, 4, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Arends, J.; Baracos, V.; Bertz, H.; Bozzetti, F.; Calder, P.C.; Deutz, N.E.P.; Erickson, N.; Laviano, A.; Lisanti, M.P.; Lobo, D.N.; et al. ESPEN expert group recommendations for action against cancer-related malnutrition. Clin. Nutr. (Edinb. Scotl.) 2017, 36, 1187–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Hui, D.; Paiva, C.E.; Del Fabbro, E.G.; Steer, C.; Naberhuis, J.; van de Wetering, M.; Fernandez-Ortega, P.; Morita, T.; Suh, S.Y.; Bruera, E.; et al. Prognostication in advanced cancer: Update and directions for future research. Supportive Care Cancer Off. J. Multinatl. Assoc. Supportive Care Cancer 2019, 27, 1973–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gray, S.; Axelsson, B. The prevalence of deranged C-reactive protein and albumin in patients with incurable cancer approaching death. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0193693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Douglas, E.; McMillan, D.C. Towards a simple objective framework for the investigation and treatment of cancer cachexia: The Glasgow Prognostic Score. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2014, 40, 685–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Silva, G.A.D.; Wiegert, E.V.M.; Calixto-Lima, L.; Oliveira, L.C. Clinical utility of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score to classify cachexia in patients with advanced cancer in palliative care. Clin. Nutr. (Edinb. Scotl.) 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dolan, R.D.; McSorley, S.T.; Horgan, P.G.; Laird, B.; McMillan, D.C. The role of the systemic inflammatory response in predicting outcomes in patients with advanced inoperable cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2017, 116, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Dupre, A.; Malik, H.Z. Inflammation and cancer: What a surgical oncologist should know. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Surg. Oncol. Br. Assoc. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 44, 566–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Fearon, K.; Argiles, J.M.; Baracos, V.E.; Bernabei, R.; Coats, A.; Crawford, J.; Deutz, N.E.; Doehner, W.; Evans, W.J.; Ferrucci, L.; et al. Request for regulatory guidance for cancer cachexia intervention trials. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2015, 6, 272–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Crawford, J.; Johnston, M.A.; Hancock, M.L. Enobosarm, a Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (SARM) increases Lean Body Mass (LBM) in advanced NSCLC patients; Updated results of two pivotal, international Phase 3 trials. In Proceedings of the MASCC, Miami.
  45. Temel, J.S.; Abernethy, A.P.; Currow, D.C.; Friend, J.; Duus, E.M.; Yan, Y.; Fearon, K.C. Anamorelin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and cachexia (ROMANA 1 and ROMANA 2): Results from two randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trials. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Laird, B.J.A.; Balstad, T.R.; Solheim, T.S. Endpoints in clinical trials in cancer cachexia: Where to start? Curr. Opin. Support Palliat Care 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ramage, M.I.; Skipworth, R.J.E. The relationship between muscle mass and function in cancer cachexia: Smoke and mirrors? Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 2018, 12, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. CT-derived body composition measures and thresholds used.
Table 1. CT-derived body composition measures and thresholds used.
Body Composition Measurement
High subcutaneous fat index [20]:
Subcutaneous fat area: Males >50.0 cm2m2 and Females >42.0 cm2m2
Visceral obesity [21,22]:
Visceral fat area: Males >160 cm2 and Females >80 cm2
Sarcopenia
Low skeletal muscle index [22]:
Males: BMI <25 kg/m2 and skeletal muscle index <43 cm2m2 or BMI >25 kg/m2 and skeletal muscle index <53 cm2m2
Females: BMI <25 kg/m2 and skeletal muscle index <41 cm2m2 or BMI >25 kg/m2 and skeletal muscle index <41 cm2m2
Myosteatosis
Low skeletal muscle radiodensity [22]:
BMI <25 kg/m2 and skeletal muscle radiodensity <41 HU or BMI >25 kg/m2 and skeletal muscle radiodensity <33 HU
Table
Table 2. Clinicopathological characteristics of patients who met the inclusion criteria (n = 523).
Table 2. Clinicopathological characteristics of patients who met the inclusion criteria (n = 523).
Characteristicn = 523 (%)
Clinico-pathological
Age<65226 (43.2)
65–74165 (31.5)
>74132 (22.5)
SexMale266 (50.9)
Female257 (49.1)
Cancer LocationLung177 (33.8)
Gastrointestinal 180 (34.4)
Other166 (31.7)
Metastatic DiseaseNo88 (16.8)
Yes435 (83.2)
Previous Anti-Cancer Therapy
ChemotherapyNo149 (28.5)
Yes374 (71.5)
RadiotherapyNo362 (69.2)
Yes161 (30.8)
HormonesNo470 (89.9)
Yes53 (10.1)
Performance status
ECOG-PS
Low Risk0/1255 (48.8)
Intermediate Risk2204 (39.0)
High Risk3/464 (12.2)
Timed up and go test ˥Pass125 (30.9)
Fail279 (69.1)
Two-minute walk test ˦Pass10 (2.5)
Fail393 (97.5)
Hand grip strength test ˧Pass 74 (62.2)
Fail45 (37.8)
Systemic Inflammation
mGPS
Low Risk0217 (41.5)
Intermediate Risk191 (17.4)
High Risk2215 (41.1)
Body composition
BMI≤20.0 kg/m274 (14.1)
20–21.9 kg/m270 (13.4)
22–24.9 kg/m2117 (22.4)
25–27.9 kg/m2107 (20.5)
≥28.0 kg/m2155 (29.6)
% Weight Loss<2.5292 (56.0)
≥2.5231 (44.0)
BMI/WL grade
Low Risk0/1276 (52.8)
Intermediate Risk2/3178 (34.0)
High Risk469 (13.2)
Subcutaneous fat index ˨Low54 (28.1)
High138 (71.9)
Visceral obesity ˨Low79 (41.1)
High113 (58.9)
Low skeletal muscle index ˩No162 (53.3)
Yes142 (46.7)
Low skeletal muscle radiodensity ˪No116 (39.7)
Yes176 (60.3)
˥: 404, ˦: 403, ˧: 119, ˨: 192, ˩: 304, ˪: 292.
Table
Table 3. The relationship between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance status (ECOG-PS) and measures of body composition and physical function in patients with advanced cancer (n = 523).
Table 3. The relationship between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance status (ECOG-PS) and measures of body composition and physical function in patients with advanced cancer (n = 523).
High subcutaneous fat index n = 192ECOG-PS 0/1ECOG-PS 2ECOG-PS 3/4Allp
No28 (30.8)19 (24.7)7 (29.2)54 (28.1)0.677
Yes63 (69.2)58 (75.3)17 (70.8)138 (71.9)
All917724192
High visceral obesity n = 192ECOG-PS 0/1ECOG-PS 2ECOG-PS 3/4Allp
No38 (41.8)33 (42.9)8 (33.3)79 (41.1)0.700
Yes53 (58.2)44 (57.1)16 (66.7)113 (58.9)
All917724192
Low skeletal muscle index n = 304ECOG-PS 0/1ECOG-PS 2ECOG-PS 3/4Allp
No101 (59.8)49 (45.8)12 (42.9)162 (53.3)0.039
Yes68 (40.2)58 (54.2)16 (57.1)142 (46.7)
All169 107 28304
Low skeletal muscle radiodensity n = 292ECOG-PS 0/1ECOG-PS 2ECOG-PS 3/4Allp
No74 (46.5)40 (38.5)2 (7.4)116 (39.7)0.001
Yes85 (53.5)66 (61.5)25 (92.6)176 (60.3)
All15910427292
Timed up and go test failure n = 404ECOG-PS 0/1ECOG-PS 2ECOG-PS 3/4Allp
No94 (54.3) \29 (17.0)2 (3.3)125 (30.9)<0.001
Yes79 (45.7)142 (83.0)58 (96.7)279 (69.1)
All17317160404
Hand grip strength test failure n = 119ECOG-PS 0/1ECOG-PS 2ECOG-PS 3/4Allp
No56 (68.3)16 (48.5)2 (50.0)74 (62.2)0.123
Yes26 (31.7)17 (51.5)2 (50.0)45 (37.8)
All82334119
Table
Table 4. The relationship between modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), and measures of body composition and physical function in patients with advanced cancer (n = 523).
Table 4. The relationship between modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), and measures of body composition and physical function in patients with advanced cancer (n = 523).
High subcutaneous fat index n = 192mGPS = 0mGPS = 1mGPS = 2Allp
No22 (29.3)5 (16.7)27 (31.0)54 (28.1)0.306
Yes53 (70.7)25 (83.3)60 (69.0)138 (71.9)
All753087192
High visceral obesity n = 192mGPS = 0mGPS = 1mGPS = 2Allp
No32 (42.7)9 (30.0)38 (43.7)79 (41.1)0.398
Yes43 (57.3)21 (70.0)49 (56.3)113 (58.9)
All753087192
Low skeletal muscle index n = 304mGPS = 0mGPS = 1mGPS = 2Allp
No72 (55.4)27 (61.4)63 (48.5)162 (53.3)0.273
Yes58 (44.6)17 (38.6)67 (51.5)142 (46.7)
All13044130304
Low skeletal muscle radiodensity n = 292mGPS = 0mGPS = 1mGPS = 2Allp
No62 (50.4)15 (34.1)39 (31.2)116 (39.7)0.006
Yes61 (49.6)29 (65.9)86 (68.8)176 (60.3)
All12344125292
Timed up and go test failure n = 404mGPS = 0mGPS = 1mGPS = 2Allp
No66 (41.3)21 (27.6)38 (22.6)125 (30.9)0.001
Yes94 (58.8)55 (72.4)130 (77.4)279 (69.1)
All16076168404
Hand grip strength test failure n = 119mGPS = 0mGPS =1mGPS = 2Allp
No44 (77.2)8 (53.3)22 (46.8)74 (62.2)0.005
Yes13 (22.8)7 (46.7)25 (53.2)45 (37.8)
All571547119
Table
Table 5. The relationship between body mass index/weight loss (BMI/WL) grade and measures of body composition and physical function measurements in patients with advanced cancer (n = 523).
Table 5. The relationship between body mass index/weight loss (BMI/WL) grade and measures of body composition and physical function measurements in patients with advanced cancer (n = 523).
High subcutaneous fat index n = 192BMI/WL grade 0/1BMI/WL grade 2/3BMI/WL grade 4Allp
No20 (22.0)23 (30.7)11 (42.3)54 (28.1)0.104
Yes71 (78.0)52 (69.3)15 (57.7)138 (71.9)
All917526192
High visceral obesity n = 192BMI/WL grade 0/1BMI/WL grade 2/3BMI/WL grade 4Allp
No30 (33.0)33 (44.0)16 (61.5)79 (41.1)0.027
Yes61 (67.0)42 (56.0)10 (38.5)113 (58.9)
All917526192
Low skeletal muscle index n = 304BMI/WL grade 0/1BMI/WL grade 2/3BMI/WL grade 4Allp
No93 (57.8)56 (51.9)13 (37.1)162 (53.3)0.080
Yes68 (42.2)52 (48.1)22 (62.9)142 (46.7)
All16110835304
Low skeletal muscle radiodensity n = 292BMI/WL grade 0/1BMI/WL grade 2/3BMI/WL grade 4Allp
No70 (45.8)41 (39.4)5 (14.3)116 (39.7)0.003
Yes83 (54.2)63 (60.6)30 (85.7)176 (60.3)
All15310435292
Timed up and go test failure n = 404BMI/WL grade 0/1BMI/WL grade 2/3BMI/WL grade 4Allp
No68 (33.7)41 (28.9)16 (26.7)125 (30.9)0.473
Yes134 (66.3)101 (71.1)44 (73.3)279 (69.1)
All202142 60404
Hand grip strength test failure n = 119BMI/WL grade 0/1BMI/WL grade 2/3BMI/WL grade 4Allp
No47 (63.5)21 (58.3)6 (66.7)74 (62.2)0.835
Yes27 (36.5)15 (41.7)3 (33.3)45 (37.8)
All74369119
Table
Table 6. The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and skeletal muscle index, skeletal muscle radiodensity and physical function in patients with advanced cancer (n = 523).
Table 6. The relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL grade and skeletal muscle index, skeletal muscle radiodensity and physical function in patients with advanced cancer (n = 523).
High subcutaneous fat indexUnivariatep-valueMultivariatep-value
ECOG-PS1.13 (0.71–1.78)0.617─0.319
mGPS0.95 (0.67–1.34)0.776─0.995
BMI/WL Grade0.62 (0.40–0.97)0.0360.62 (0.40–0.97)0.036
High visceral obesityUnivariatep-valueMultivariatep-value
ECOG-PS1.12 (0.74–1.70)0.606─0.254
mGPS0.97 (0.71–1.33)0.865─0.844
BMI/WL Grade0.57 (0.38–0.87)0.0090.57 (0.38–0.87)0.009
Low skeletal muscle indexUnivariatep-valueMultivariatep-value
ECOG-PS1.53 (1.08–2.17)0.0161.90 (1.51–2.39)<0.001
mGPS1.15 (0.90–1.47)0.264─0.768
BMI/WL Grade1.44 (1.03–2.00)0.033─0.106
Low skeletal muscle radiodensityUnivariatep-valueMultivariatep-value
ECOG-PS2.01 (1.36–2.98)<0.0011.68 (1.11–2.55)0.013
mGPS1.50 (1.16–1.95)0.0021.32 (1.01–1.73)0.049
BMI/WL Grade1.77 (1.23–2.55)0.0021.50 (1.02–2.19)0.037
Timed up and go test failureUnivariatep-valueMultivariatep-value
ECOG-PS5.84 (3.79–9.00)<0.0015.84 (3.79–9.00)<0.001
mGPS1.56 (1.22–1.98)<0.001─0.231
BMI/WL Grade1.20 (0.89–1.61)0.232─0.484
Hand grip strength test failureUnivariatep-valueMultivariatep-value
ECOG-PS1.93 (0.97–3.84)0.060─0.213
mGPS1.95 (1.29–2.97)0.0021.95 (1.29–2.97)0.002
BMI/WL Grade1.05 (0.59–1.89)0.862─0.621

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dolan, R.D.; Daly, L.E.; Simmons, C.P.; Ryan, A.M.; Sim, W.M.; Fallon, M.; Power, D.G.; Wilcock, A.; Maddocks, M.; Bennett, M.I.; et al. The Relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL Grade and Body Composition and Physical Function in Patients with Advanced Cancer. Cancers 2020, 12, 1187. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051187

AMA Style

Dolan RD, Daly LE, Simmons CP, Ryan AM, Sim WM, Fallon M, Power DG, Wilcock A, Maddocks M, Bennett MI, et al. The Relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL Grade and Body Composition and Physical Function in Patients with Advanced Cancer. Cancers. 2020; 12(5):1187. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051187

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dolan, Ross D., Louise E. Daly, Claribel Pl. Simmons, Aoife M. Ryan, Wei Mj. Sim, Marie Fallon, Derek G. Power, Andrew Wilcock, Matthew Maddocks, Michael I. Bennett, and et al. 2020. "The Relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL Grade and Body Composition and Physical Function in Patients with Advanced Cancer" Cancers 12, no. 5: 1187. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051187

APA Style

Dolan, R. D., Daly, L. E., Simmons, C. P., Ryan, A. M., Sim, W. M., Fallon, M., Power, D. G., Wilcock, A., Maddocks, M., Bennett, M. I., Usborne, C., Laird, B. J., & McMillan, D. C. (2020). The Relationship between ECOG-PS, mGPS, BMI/WL Grade and Body Composition and Physical Function in Patients with Advanced Cancer. Cancers, 12(5), 1187. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051187

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop