4.5 Article

Muscle volume loss as a prognostic marker in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib

Journal

HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 47, Issue 6, Pages 558-565

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hepr.12780

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; muscle wasting; pre-sarcopenia; prognosis; sorafenib

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimTo elucidate the clinical significance of muscle wasting in regard to survival of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing sorafenib treatment, we evaluated prognostic factors including muscle wasting at the start of sorafenib treatment. MethodsWe enrolled 93 patients with unresectable HCC (68.39.4years old, 81 men, 12 women, Child-Pugh score 5:6:7=69:22:2) who were treated with sorafenib. Muscle wasting was evaluated based on psoas muscle area index (psoas muscle area at level of middle of third lumbar vertebra [cm(2)]/height [m](2)) calculated from computed tomography findings. Previously reported cut-off values for muscle wasting in men and women (4.24 and 2.50cm(2)/m(2), respectively) were used. Patients were divided into those with (muscle-atrophy group, n=20) and without (non-atrophy group, n=73) muscle wasting. ResultsThere were no significant differences in regard to etiology, Child-Pugh classification, and tumor-node-metastasis stage between the groups. In contrast, body mass index in the muscle-atrophy group was lower (20.9 +/- 2.4 vs. 23.5 +/- 3.4, P=0.003). Although time to progression was not different (median 2.1 vs. 2.8months, P=0.242), the 6-, 12-, and 18-month survival rates were worse in the muscle-atrophy group (62.7%, 32.3%, and 32.3% vs. 78.3%, 64.7% and 48.1%, respectively, P=0.042). In multivariate Cox hazard analysis, des--carboxy prothrombin level (100 mAU/mL) (hazard ratio, 2.540; P=0.018) and positive for muscle wasting (hazard ratio, 2.158; P=0.032) were significant prognostic factors at the start of sorafenib treatment. ConclusionMuscle wasting is an important prognostic factor in patients treated with sorafenib.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available