14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of different palliative systemic treatments on skeletal muscle mass in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Observational studies suggest that loss of skeletal muscle mass (SMM) is associated with chemotherapy‐related toxicity, poor quality of life, and poor survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Little is known about the evolution of SMM during palliative systemic therapy. We investigated changes in SMM during various consecutive palliative systemic treatment regimens using repeated abdominal computed tomography scans of mCRC patients who participated in the randomized phase 3 CAIRO3 study.

          Methods

          In the CAIRO3 study, mCRC patients with stable disease or better after 6 cycles of first‐line treatment with capecitabine + oxaliplatin + bevacizumab (CAPOX‐B) were randomized between maintenance treatment with capecitabine + bevacizumab (CAP‐B) or observation. Upon first disease progression, in both groups, CAPOX‐B or other treatment was reintroduced until the second disease progression, which was the primary study endpoint. We analysed 1355 computed tomography scans of 450 (81%) CAIRO3 patients (64 ± 9.0 years, CAP‐B n = 223; observation n = 227) for SMM at four time points (i.e. prior to the start of pre‐randomization initial treatment, at randomization, and at first and at second disease progression) using the Slice‐o‐matic software and single slice evaluation at the lumbar 3 level. By using accepted and widely used formulas, whole body SMM was calculated. A linear mixed effects model, adjusted for relevant confounders, was used to assess SMM changes for the total group and within and between study arms.

          Results

          During 6 cycles of initial treatment with CAPOX‐B prior to randomization, SMM decreased significantly in all patients [CAP‐B arm: −0.53 kg (95% CI −1.12; −0.07) and observation arm: −0.85 kg (−1.45; −0.25)]. After randomization, SMM recovered during CAP‐B treatment by 1.32 kg (0.73; 1.90) and observation by 1.20 kg (0.63; 1.78) (median time from randomization to first disease progression 8.6 and 4.1 months for CAP‐B arm and observation arm, respectively). After first progression and during reintroduction treatment with CAPOX‐B or other treatment, SMM again decreased significantly and comparable in both arms, CAP‐B: −2.71 kg (−3.37; −2.03), and observation: −2.01 kg (−2.64; −1.41) (median time from first progression until second progression CAP‐B arm: 4.7 months and observation arm: 6.6 months).

          Conclusions

          This longitudinal study provides a unique insight in SMM changes in mCRC patients during palliative systemic treatment regimens, including observation. Our data show that muscle loss is reversible and may be influenced by the intensity of systemic regimens. Although studies have shown prognostic capacity for SMM, the effects of subsequent changes in SMM are unknown and may be clues for new future therapeutic interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Ethical guidelines for publishing in the journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle: update 2017

            Abstract This article details an updated version of the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM). At the time of submission to JCSM, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co‐authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are as follows: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) publication as provided to JCSM. No person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript. Each author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication. The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form. All authors certify that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before these other publications must be referenced. All original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees. All conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript. The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true. If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Loss of Muscle Mass During Chemotherapy Is Predictive for Poor Survival of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

              Low muscle mass is present in approximately 40% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and may be associated with poor outcome. We studied change in skeletal muscle during palliative chemotherapy in patients with mCRC and its association with treatment modifications and overall survival.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.m.may@umcutrecht.nl
                Journal
                J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
                J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
                10.1007/13539.2190-6009
                JCSM
                Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2190-5991
                2190-6009
                24 August 2018
                October 2018
                : 9
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1002/jcsm.v9.5 )
                : 909-919
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 3 ] School of Public Health Imperial College London London UK
                [ 4 ] Danone Nutricia Research, Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 5 ] Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 6 ] Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 7 ] Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Anne M. May, Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Phone: +31 88‐7551132, Fax: +31 88‐7568099, Email: a.m.may@ 123456umcutrecht.nl
                [†]

                Miriam Koopman and Anne M. May contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8948-5937
                Article
                JCSM12337 JCSM-D-17-00332
                10.1002/jcsm.12337
                6204584
                30144305
                589460ad-9eed-4015-ac35-d0b2c14c6235
                © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 12 December 2017
                : 19 May 2018
                : 25 June 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 11, Words: 4763
                Funding
                Funded by: Province of Utrecht, the Netherlands
                Funded by: Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG)
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jcsm12337
                October 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.5.1 mode:remove_FC converted:29.10.2018

                Orthopedics
                metastatic colorectal cancer,skeletal muscle,sarcopenia,body composition,chemotherapy
                Orthopedics
                metastatic colorectal cancer, skeletal muscle, sarcopenia, body composition, chemotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article