Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Association between functional aspects and health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer: can handgrip strength be the measure of choice in clinical practice?

  • Research
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to investigate the association between handgrip strength (HGS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). A cross-sectional study was conducted including CRC patients.

Methods

We performed an assessment of aspects of functional health using the criteria of frailty phenotype (defined by Fried et al., 2001), sarcopenia (defined by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2, 2018) and by HGS, which measures muscle strength using a manual dynamometer. HRQoL was assessed using the EORTC questionnaire QLQ-C30. Analyses of variance and multivariate linear regression were used to compare frailty, sarcopenia, and HGS with HRQoL.

Results

A total of 142 patients were included (age 62.7 ± 11.4 years; 56.3% women; 18.3% of patients with frailty; 9.9% with sarcopenia, and 15.5% had low HGS). After adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and nutritional variables, the regression analysis showed that frailty and sarcopenia were associated with worse HRQoL. Low HGS was associated with worse HRQoL in patients with CRC regardless of both frailty components (global health status: B =  − 13.4, p = 0.004; physical function: B =  − 10.4, p = 0.006; emotional function: B =  − 18.1, p = 0.041; fatigue: B = 9.1, p = 0.027; dyspnea: B = 10.7, p = p = 0.024; appetite loss: B = 12.4, p = 0.041) and sarcopenia components (global health status: B =  − 13.2, p = 0.004; physical function: B =  − 15.0, p = 0.001; emotional function: B =  − 25.1, p = 0.006; fatigue: B = 15.2, p = 0.007; pain: B = 18.7, p = 0.024, dyspnea: B = 11.4, p = 0.017).

Conclusion

We concluded that HGS was positively associated with HRQoL in patients with CRC and may initially be the variable of choice in clinical practice, which is associated with HRQoL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R et al (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Aguiar SS, Bergmann A, Mattos IE (2014) Quality of life as a predictor of overall survival after breast cancer treatment. Qual Life Res 23:629–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fleck MP, Louzada S, Xavier M (1999) Application of the portuguese version of the instrument for the assessment of quality of life of the World Health Organization (WHOQOL-100). RSP 33:198–205

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. De Carvalho G, Camilo ME, Ravasco P (2011) What is the relevance of nutrition in oncology? Acta Med Port 24:1041–1050

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ryan AM, Power DG, Louise D et al (2016) Cancer associated malnutrition, cachexia and sarcopenia: the skeleton in the hospital closet 40 years later. Proc Nutr Soc 75:199–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Prado CMM, Lieffers JL, McCargar LJ et al (2008) Prevalence and clinical implications of sarcopenic obesity in patients with solid tumours of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 9:629–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan BHL, Birdsell LA, Martin L et al (2009) Sarcopenia in an overweight or obese patient is an adverse prognostic factor in pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res 15:6973–6979

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin L, Birdsell L, Macdonald N et al (2013) Cancer cachexia in the age of obesity: skeletal muscle depletion is a powerful prognostic factor, independent of body mass index. J Clin Oncol 31:1539–1547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reisinger KW, van Vugt JLA, Tegels JJW et al (2015) Functional compromise reflected by sarcopenia, frailty, and nutritional depletion predicts adverse postoperative outcome after colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 261:345–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lorenzo-López L, Maseda A, de Labra C et al (2017) Nutritional determinants of frailty in older adults: a systematic review. BMC Geriat 17:108–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J et al (2001) Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56:M146–M156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J et al (2019) Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 48:16–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morishita S, Kaida K, Tanaka T et al (2012) Prevalence of sarcopenia and relevance of body composition, physiological function, fatigue, and health related quality of life in patients before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Support Care Cancer 20:3161–3168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Souza-Santos AR, Amaral TF (2017) Differences in handgrip strength protocols to identify sarcopenia and frailty – a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 17:238–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bae E, Park N, Sohn H et al (2019) Handgrip strength and all-cause mortality in middle-aged and older Koreans. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:740–754

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Riviati N, Setiati S, Laksmi PW et al (2017) Factors related with handgrip strength in elderly patients. Acta Med Indones-Indones J Intern Med 49:215–219

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brieeley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2017). Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). TNM: Classification of Malignant Tumours, 8th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Oxford

  18. Geneva: Wold Health Organization (1995) World Health Organization Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. WHO Tech Rep Ser 854:1–452

  19. Organización Panamericana de La Salud (2002) XXXVI Reunión del Comité Asesor de Investigaciones en Salud: Encuestra multicêntrica: salud bienestar y envejecimiento. (SABE) en América Latina e el Caribe: informe preliminar. http://envejecimiento.csic.es/documentos/documentos/paho-salud-01.pdf (accessed April 2019)

  20. Ottery FD (1994) Center cachexia prevention, early diagnosis, and management. Cancer Pract 2:123–131

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gonzalez MC, Borges LR, Silveira DH et al (2010) Validação da versão em português da avaliação subjetiva global produzida pelo paciente. Ver Bras Nutr Cli 25:102–108

    Google Scholar 

  22. Guralink JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L et al (1994) A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 49:M85–M94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nunes DP, Duarte YA, Santos JL et al (2015) Screening for frailty in older adults using a self-reported instrument. Rev Saúde Pública 49:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Silveira DX, Jorge MR (2000) Escala de rastreamento populacional para depressão CES-D em populações clínicas e não clínicas de adolescentes e adultos jovens. In: Gorestain C, Andrade LHSG, Zuarde AWF (eds) Escalas de avaliação clínica em psiquiatria e farmacologia. Lemos Editorial, São Paulo

  25. Matsudo S, Araújo T, Matsudo V et al (2001) Questionário Internacional de Atividade Física (IPAQ): estudo de validade e reprodutibilidade no Brasil. RBAFS 6:5–12

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mourtzakis M, Prado CM, Lieffers JR et al (2008) 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 33:997–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Franceschini J, Jardim JR, Fernandes AL et al (2010) Reproducibility of the Brazilian portuguese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire used in conjunction with its lung cancer-specific module. J Bras Pneumol 36:595–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen J (1998) Statistical Power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tanaka T, Morishita S, Hashimoto M et al (2019) Physical function and health-related quality of life in the convalescent phase in surgically treated patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Support Care Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04704-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cabilan CJ, Hines S (2017) The short-term impact of colorectal cancer treatment on physical activity, functional status and quality of life: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 15:527–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shin KNL, Mun CY, Shariff ZM (2020) Nutrition indicators, physical function, and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 21:1939–1950

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Heinsbergen M, Konsten JL, Bours MJL et al (2020) Preoperative handgrip strength is not associated with complications and health-related quality of life after surgery for colorectal cancer. Sci Rep 10:13005–13012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Williams GR, Deal AM, Sanoff HK et al (2019) Frailty and health-related quality of life in older women with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 27:2693–2698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ronning B, Wyller TB, Nesbakken A et al (2016) Quality of life in older and frail patients after surgery for colorectal cancer – a follow-up study. J Geriatr Oncol 7:195–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Geessink N, Schoon Y, van Goor H et al (2017) Frailty and quality of life among older people with and without a cancer diagnosis: Findings from TOPICS-MDS. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189648

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Park SE, Hwang IG, Choi CH et al (2018) Sarcopenia is poor prognostic factor in older patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who received preoperative or postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013363.0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Xiao J, Caan BJ, Feliciano EMC et al (2019) The association of medical and demographic characteristics with sarcopenia and low muscle radiodensity in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 109:615–625

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Miyamoto Y, Baba Y, Sakamoto Y et al (2015) Sarcopenia is a negative prognostic factor after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22:2663–2668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Roekel EH, Bours MJL, Te Molder MEM et al (2017) Associations of adipose and muscle tissue parameters at colorectal cancer diagnosis with long-term health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 26:1745–1759

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Nipp RD, Fuchs G, El-Jawahri A et al (2018) Sarcopenia is associated with quality of life and depression in patients with advanced cancer. Oncologist 23:97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Medical Science, Medical Science Faculty, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Mariana Vieira Barbosa

  2. Program in Food, Nutrition and Health, Nutrition Institute, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Mylena Pinto dos Santos

  3. Nutrition and Dietetic Service, Cancer Hospital Unit I, National Cancer Institute, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Jocilene Alves Leite, Viviane Dias Rodrigues & Renata Brum Martucci

  4. Brazilian Society of Oncology Nutrition, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Nivaldo Barroso de Pinho

  5. Department of Applied Nutrition, Nutrition Institute, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Renata Brum Martucci

Authors
  1. Mariana Vieira Barbosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mylena Pinto dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jocilene Alves Leite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Viviane Dias Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nivaldo Barroso de Pinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Renata Brum Martucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Mariana Vieira Barbosa: designed research, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the article and critical revision of important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be submitted. Mylena Pinto dos Santos and Jocilene Alves Leite: acquisition and analysis of data; final approval of the version to be submitted. Viviane Dias Rodrigues and Nivaldo Barroso de Pinho: designed research; critical revision of important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be submitted. Renata Brum Martucci: the conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the article and critical revision of important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariana Vieira Barbosa.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the National Cancer Institute José Alencar Gomes da Silva (no. 54778216.7.0000.5274).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barbosa, M.V., dos Santos, M.P., Leite, J.A. et al. Association between functional aspects and health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer: can handgrip strength be the measure of choice in clinical practice?. Support Care Cancer 31, 144 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-07608-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-07608-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation