Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30920776›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2019

Orphan disease status of cancer cachexia in the USA and in the European Union: a systematic review.

Markus S Anker, Richard Holcomb, Maurizio Muscaritoli, Stephan von Haehling, Wilhelm Haverkamp, Aminah Jatoi, John E Morley, Florian Strasser, Ulf Landmesser, Andrew J S Coats and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 125 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
125citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

125 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 189 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Long-chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids MitigatebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Cancer cachexia: molecular basis and therapeutic advances.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Review

65 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Markus S AnkerDivision of Cardiology and Metabolism, Department of Cardiology & Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (CVK), Berlin, Germany.
Richard HolcombIndependent biostatistician, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Maurizio MuscaritoliDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Stephan von HaehlingDepartment of Cardiology and Pneumology, DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), University of Göttingen Medical Center (UMG), Göttingen, Germany.
Wilhelm HaverkampDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Aminah JatoiMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
John E MorleyDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, 63104, USA.
Florian StrasserOncological Palliative Medicine, Clinic Medical Oncology and Haematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cantonal Hospital, St Gallen and Integrated Cancer Rehabilitation, Klinik Gais, Switzerland.
Ulf LandmesserDZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany.
Andrew J S CoatsIRCCS, San Raffaele Hospital, Pisana, Rome, Italy.
Stefan D AnkerDivision of Cardiology and Metabolism, Department of Cardiology & Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (CVK), Berlin, Germany.
German Centre for Cardiovascular Research · DEBiostatistical Consulting (United States) · USCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEMayo Clinic in Arizona · USSaint Louis University · USSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Göttingen · DEUniversity of St.Gallen · CHVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCachexia has significant impact on the patients' quality of life and prognosis. It is frequently observed in patients with cancer, especially in advanced stages, but prevalence data for the overall population are lacking. Good quality estimates of cancer cachexia in general and for each of the major cancer types would be highly relevant for potential treatment development efforts in this field. Both the USA and European Union (EU) have implemented special clinical development rules for such rare disorders what are called 'orphan diseases'. The cut-off level for a disease to be considered an orphan disease in the USA is 200 000 people (0.06% of the population) and EU is 5 per 10 000 people (0.05% of the population).

methodsFor this systematic review, we searched at PubMed (from inception to 31 January 2018) to identify clinical studies that assessed the prevalence of cachexia in cancer patients at risk. Studies reporting the prevalence of either cancer cachexia or wasting disease in the top-10 cancer types and 4 other selected cancer types known to be particularly commonly complicated by cachexia were included in this analysis (i.e. prostate cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, melanoma, endometrial cancer, thyroid cancer, urinary bladder cancer, non-hodgkin lymphoma, lung cancer, kidney and renal pelvis cancer, head and neck cancer, gastric cancer, liver cancer, and pancreatic cancer). We calculated the current burden of cancer cachexia, disease by disease, in the USA and in the EU and compared them to the current guidelines for the definition of orphan disease status.

resultsWe estimate that in 2014 in the USA, a total of 527 100 patients (16.5 subjects per 10 000 people of the total population), and in 2013 in the EU, a total of 800 300 patients (15.8 subjects per 10 000 people of the total population) suffered from cancer cachexia (of any kind). In the 14 separately analysed cancer types, the prevalence of cancer cachexia in the USA ranged between 11 300 (0.4/10 000, gastric cancer) and 92 000 patients (2.9/10 000, lung cancer) and in the EU between 14 300 (0.3/10 000, melanoma of the skin) and 150 100 (3.0/10 000, colorectal cancer).

conclusionsThe absolute number of patients affected by cancer cachexia in each cancer group is lower than the defined thresholds for orphan diseases in the USA and EU. Cancer cachexia in each subgroup separately should be considered an orphan disease.

Indexed as

CachexiaEuropean UnionHumansNeoplasmsRare DiseasesUnited StatesCachexiaEpidemiologyEuropean UnionOrphan diseasePrevalenceUSA

Identifiers

PMID30920776
PMCPMC6438416
OpenAlexW2930210278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.