Impact of Preoperative Skeletal Muscle Mass and Nutritional Status on Short-and Long-Term Outcomes After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study
- 186 Downloads
Preoperative muscle volume and body mass index (BMI) are associated with postoperative outcomes. Because esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (EC) is associated with high morbidity and because EC has a poor prognosis, this study investigated the association of preoperative skeletal muscle mass and nutritional status with postoperative outcomes.
The study analyzed 483 patients who underwent esophagectomy from 2009 to 2012. The cross-sectional area of the psoas muscle index (PMI) was measured at the third lumbar vertebral level using computed tomography. Clavien–Dindo classifications were used to analyze postoperative complications. Because skeletal muscle mass varies according to sex, all analyses were performed accordingly (390 males, 93 females).
For male patients, BMI was a significant multivariate factor, and PMI, a univariate factor, predicted postoperative complications and overall survival (OS). Using a preoperative nutritional and muscular (PNM) score derived from BMI and PMI results (patients were allocated 1 point if their BMI was < 18.5 kg/m2 and 1 point if their PMI was < 600 mm2/m2, for a possible maximum total of 2 points), male patients were categorized as high risk (score 2), moderate risk (score 1), or low risk (score 0). In the low-risk group, anastomotic leakage was significantly less (p = 0.01), and the 3-year OS was significantly better (p < 0.01). On the other hand, in female patients, neither BMI nor PMI was a significant factor for postoperative outcomes.
For male patients, the PNM score is a promising tool for predicting postoperative outcomes and identifying patients requiring preoperative nutritional intervention and rehabilitation.
There are no conflicts of interest.
- 13.Nakashima Y, Saeki H, Nakanihi R, et al. Assessment of sarcopenia as a predictor of poor outcomes after esophagectomy in elderly patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;25:456. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002252.Google Scholar
- 23.Law S, Kwong DL, Kwok KF, et al. Improvement in treatment results and long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer: impact of chemoradiation and change in treatment strategy. Ann Surg. 2003;238:339–47.Google Scholar
- 24.Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Common toxicity criteria. Version 2.0 (1999). Retrieved 9 Feb 2018. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcv20_430-992.pdf.
- 25.Onodera T, Goseki N, Kosaki G, et al. Prognostic nutritional index in gastrointestinal surgery of malnourished cancer patients. Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 1984;85:1001–5.Google Scholar
- 26.Miki C, Kusunoki M. Perioperative nutritional management in various clinical condition: diseases of lower digestive system. Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 2010;111:368–72.Google Scholar
- 28.Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, et al. Classification and regression trees (Wadsworth statistics/probability). Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, 1984.Google Scholar
- 30.WHO. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. WHO Technical Report Series 854. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1995.Google Scholar
- 31.Sheetz KH, Zhao L, Holcombe SA, et al. Decreased core muscle size is associated with worse patient survival following esophagectomy for cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2013;26:716–22.Google Scholar