ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2021
Different definition of sarcopenia and mortality in cancer: A meta-analysis.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Change in skeletal muscle mass during systemic cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Pooled it
- Low Skeletal Muscle Mass Predicts Relevant Outcomes in Palliative Urological Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Urologia internationalis · 2023Pooled it
- Computed Tomography-Derived Sarcopenia and Two- Versus Three-Dimensional Body Composition for Prognostication in Colorectal Cancer Patients Receiving Chemoradiotherapy: An Automated Deep Learning Segmentation Study with External Reproducibility Assessment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Low Muscle Density Is Associated with Morbidity and Systemic Inflammation in Colorectal Cancer, Independent of Tumor Factors.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Different cutoff values of the skeletal muscle mass and myosteatosis result in different clinical impact on overall survival in oncology. A subanalysis of a clinical trial.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- An integrative review of cancer-related cachexia and sarcopenia: A different focus in malignant hematology.Health sciences review (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Characterization of a Cancer-Induced Bone Pain Model for Use as a Model of Cancer Cachexia.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- Association of sarcopenia with severe chemotherapy toxicities and survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer.The oncologist · 2024Article
- AI-based fully automatic image analysis: Optimal abdominal and thoracic segmentation volumes for estimating total muscle volume on computed tomography scans.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2024Article
- Cancer Cachexia: New Insights and Future Directions.Cancers · 2023Review
- Sarcopenia Diagnosis and Management in Hematological Malignancies and Differences with Cachexia and Frailty.Cancers · 2023Review
- The Pathways to Prevention program: nutrition as prevention for improved cancer outcomes.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Is the ECOG-PS similar to the sarcopenia status for predicting mortality in older adults with cancer? A prospective cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- Sarcopenia does not limit overall survival after interstitial brachytherapy for breast cancer liver metastases.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2022Article
- Summary of the special issue of the meta-analyses of lean mass with mortality in multiple perspectives.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSarcopenia has been an emerging theme in clinical oncology. Various definitions of sarcopenia have been proposed, but their prognostic performance have yet to be evaluated and compared. The aim of this meta-analysis is to comprehensively evaluate the performance of different cutoff definitions of sarcopenia in cancer mortality prognostication.
methodsThis is a meta-analysis. Cohort studies on lean mass and mortality published before December 20, 2017 were obtained by systematic search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Inclusion criteria were cohort studies reporting binary lean mass categorized according to clearly defined cutoffs, and with all-cause mortality as study outcome. Studies were stratified according to the cutoff(s) used in defining low lean mass. The cutoff-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of low lean mass on cancer mortality were pooled with a random-effects model and compared.
resultsAltogether 81 studies that studied binary lean mass were included. The pooled HRs on cancer mortality using the 3 most used definitions were: 1.74 (95% CI, 1.46-2.07) using the definition proposed by International Consensus of Cancer Cachexia, 1.45 (95% CI, 1.21-1.75) using that by Martin, and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.35-1.84) using that by Prado. The associations between sarcopenia and cancer mortality using other definitions were all statistically significant, despite different estimates were observed.
conclusionsThe association of low lean mass with increased mortality was consistent across different definitions; this provides further evidence on the poorer survival in cancer patients with sarcopenia. However, further studies evaluating the performance of each definition are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.