RESUMEN
ABSTRACT Sarcopenia, a concept reflecting the loss of skeletal muscle mass, was reported to be associated with the prognosis of several tumors. However, the prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with renal cancer remains unclear. We carried out this metaanalysis and systematic review to evaluate the prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with renal cell carcinomas. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2018. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled together. A total of 5 studies consisting of 771 patients were enrolled in this quantitative analysis, 347 (45.0%) of which had sarcopenia. Patients with sarcopenia had a worse OS compared with those without sarcopenia (HR=1.76; 95%CI, 1.35-2.31; P <0.001). In the subgroup of patients with localized and advanced/metastatic diseases, sarcopenia was also associated with poor OS (HR=1.48, P=0.039; HR=2.14, P <0.001; respectively). With a limited sample size, we did not observe difference of PFS between two groups (HR=1.56, 95% CI, 0.69-3.50, P=0.282). In the present meta-analysis, we observed that patients with sarcopenia had a worse OS compared with those without sarcopenia in RCC. Larger, preferably prospective studies, are needed to confirm and update our findings.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Carcinoma de Células Renales/complicaciones , Sarcopenia/complicaciones , Neoplasias Renales/complicaciones , Pronóstico , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
Sarcopenia, a concept reflecting the loss of skeletal muscle mass, was reported to be associated with the prognosis of several tumors. However, the prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with renal cancer remains unclear. We carried out this meta-analysis and systematic review to evaluate the prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with renal cell carcinomas. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2018. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled together. A total of 5 studies consisting of 771 patients were enrolled in this quantitative analysis, 347 (45.0%) of which had sarcopenia. Patients with sarcopenia had a worse OS compared with those without sarcopenia (HR=1.76; 95%CI, 1.35-2.31; P<0.001). In the subgroup of patients with localized and advanced/metastatic diseases, sarcopenia was also associated with poor OS (HR=1.48, P=0.039; HR=2.14, P<0.001; respectively). With a limited sample size, we did not observe difference of PFS between two groups (HR=1.56, 95% CI, 0.69-3.50, P=0.282). In the present meta-analysis, we observed that patients with sarcopenia had a worse OS compared with those without sarcopenia in RCC. Larger, preferably prospective studies, are needed to confirm and update our findings.