Measurement of Muscle Mass and Sarcopenia Using Anthropometry, Bioelectrical Impedance, and Computed Tomography in Surgical Patients with Colorectal Malignancy: Comparison of Agreement Between Methods

Debra Jones, Simon Lal, Boyd Strauss, Chris Todd, Mark Pilling, Sorrel Burden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

49 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Low skeletal muscle index (SMI) and sarcopenia adversely affect clinical outcomes in oncology patients. Study aims were to assess the agreement of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC), and computed tomography (CT) at the third lumbar vertebra (L3), for the measurement of muscle mass and identification of sarcopenia, in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Method: A comparison study of low SMI and sarcopenia determined by BIA and MAMC, compared to CT. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated.

Results: CT scans were obtained for 100 participants. Low SMI was identified in 29%, 57%, and 20% of participants using CT at L3, BIA, and MAMC, respectively. For low muscle mass BIA showed 60% of participants were correctly classified (AUC 0.619, sensitivity 80%, specificity 52%, kappa 0.241, P = 0.009) and for MAMC, 73% of participants were correctly classified (AUC 0.625, sensitivity 38%, specificity 88%, kappa 0.286, P = 0.005). There were 14%, 31%, and 10% of participants identified as having sarcopenia from CT, BIA, and MAMC, respectively.

Conclusions: Both BIA and MAMC show a poor level of agreement for measuring muscle mass compared to CT scans using L3 in patients with CRC.
Original languageEnglish
Article number DOI: 10.1080/01635581.2019.1659381
Number of pages10
JournalNutrition and Cancer
Early online date4 Sep 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Measurement of Muscle Mass and Sarcopenia Using Anthropometry, Bioelectrical Impedance, and Computed Tomography in Surgical Patients with Colorectal Malignancy: Comparison of Agreement Between Methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this