Decreased psoas muscle area is a prognosticator for 90-day and 1-year survival in patients undergoing surgical treatment for spinal metastasis. Issue 3 (March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hu, Ming-Hsiao; Yen, Hung-Kuan; Chen, I-Hsin; Wu, Chih-Horng; Chen, Chih-Wei; Yang, Jiun-Jen; Wang, Zhong-Yu; Yen, Mao-Hsu; Yang, Shu-Hua; Lin, Wei-Hsin
• Is Part Of: Clinical nutrition. Volume 41:Issue 3(2022)
• Page Start: 620
• Page End: 629
• Publication Date: 2022-03
• Subjects: Marginal effect -- Psoas muscle -- Sarcopenia -- Spine metastases -- Survival -- Taiwanese; Critically ill -- Nutrition -- Periodicals; Diet therapy -- Periodicals; Parenteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral Nutrition -- Periodicals; Parenteral Nutrition -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Periodicals; Diétothérapie -- Périodiques; Alimentation parentérale -- Périodiques; Alimentation entérale -- Périodiques; Nutrition -- Périodiques; Diet therapy; Enteral feeding; Nutrition; Parenteral feeding; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 615.854
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2022.01.011
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0261-5614

Abstract

Summary: Background and aims: Survival estimation for patients with spinal metastasis is crucial to treatment decisions. Psoas muscle area (PMA), a surrogate for total muscle mass, has been proposed as a useful survival prognosticator. However, few studies have validated the predictive value of decreased PMA in an Asian cohort or its predictive value after controlling for existing preoperative scoring systems (PSSs). In this study, we aim to answer: (1) Is PMA associated with survival in Han Chinese patients with spinal metastasis? (2) Is PMA a good prognosticator according to concordance index (c-index) and decision curve analysis (DCA) after controlling for six existing and commonly used PSSs? Methods: This study included 180 adult (≥18 years old) Taiwanese patients with a mean age of 58.3 years (range: 22–85) undergoing surgical treatment for spinal metastasis. A patient's PMA was classified into decreased, medium, and large if it fell into the lower (0–33%), middle (33–67%), and upper (67–100%) 1/3 in the study cohort, respectively. We used logistic and cox proportional-hazard regressions to assess whether PMA was associated with 90-day, 1-year, and overall survival. The model performance before and after addition of PMA to six commonly used PSSs, including Tomita score, original Tokuhashi score, revised Tokuhashi score, modified Bauer score, New England Spinal Metastasis Score, and Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine learning algorithms (SORG-MLAs), was compared by c-index and DCA to determine if PMA was a useful survival prognosticator. Results: Patients with a larger PMA is associated with better 90-day, but not 1-year, survival. The model performance of 90-day survival prediction improved after PMA was incorporated into all PSSs except SORG-MLAs. PMA barely improved the discriminatory ability (c-index, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67–0.82 vs. c-index, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66–0.81) and provided little gain of clinical net benefit on DCA for SORG-MLAs' 90-day survival prediction. Conclusions: PMA is a prognosticator for 90-day survival and improves the discriminatory ability of earlier-proposed PSSs in our Asian cohort. However, incorporating PMA into more modern PSSs such as SORG-MLAs did not significantly improve its prediction performance.