{"title":"癌症患者恶病质的发生率和存活率：系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cachexia is associated with lower overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer; however, the relationship between the two is reported to differ according to the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia.</p><p>We aimed to investigate <em>1</em>) the difference in the prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer and <em>2</em>) the association between cachexia and OS, depending on the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia in patients with cancer. We searched PubMed and Web of Science from their inception until July 31, 2023, to identify eligible studies. We conducted a systematic review of the prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer and performed a meta-analysis to investigate its relationship with OS. A total of 125 articles comprising 137,960 patients were included in the systematic review, and 26 articles consisting of 11,118 patients underwent meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer was 33.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.8, 33.3); however, it varied according to the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia (13.9%–56.5%). According to the Fearon 2011 criteria, the prevalence of cachexia was associated with a high hazard ratio (HR) for OS compared with that of noncachexia [HR: 1.58 (95% CI: 1.45, 1.73)]; according to the other criteria, the HR was 2.78 (95% CI: 1.88, 4.11), indicating significant subgroup differences (<em>P</em> = 0.006). The dose–response curve indicated that the HR for OS plateaued at a cachexia prevalence range of 40%–50% (<span>l</span>-shaped relationship). The prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer may vary depending on the definitive criteria used to diagnose cachexia. The HR for OS was higher for low cachexia prevalence. The definitive criteria should be carefully considered when assessing cachexia in patients with cancer.</p><p>This trial was registered at the PROSPERO as CRD42023435474.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7349,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Nutrition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831324001169/pdfft?md5=0b2eb374e7a7c75e8af1efcab98e8e1d&pid=1-s2.0-S2161831324001169-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence of and Survival with Cachexia among Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Cachexia is associated with lower overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer; however, the relationship between the two is reported to differ according to the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia.</p><p>We aimed to investigate <em>1</em>) the difference in the prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer and <em>2</em>) the association between cachexia and OS, depending on the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia in patients with cancer. We searched PubMed and Web of Science from their inception until July 31, 2023, to identify eligible studies. We conducted a systematic review of the prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer and performed a meta-analysis to investigate its relationship with OS. A total of 125 articles comprising 137,960 patients were included in the systematic review, and 26 articles consisting of 11,118 patients underwent meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer was 33.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.8, 33.3); however, it varied according to the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia (13.9%–56.5%). According to the Fearon 2011 criteria, the prevalence of cachexia was associated with a high hazard ratio (HR) for OS compared with that of noncachexia [HR: 1.58 (95% CI: 1.45, 1.73)]; according to the other criteria, the HR was 2.78 (95% CI: 1.88, 4.11), indicating significant subgroup differences (<em>P</em> = 0.006). The dose–response curve indicated that the HR for OS plateaued at a cachexia prevalence range of 40%–50% (<span>l</span>-shaped relationship). The prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer may vary depending on the definitive criteria used to diagnose cachexia. The HR for OS was higher for low cachexia prevalence. The definitive criteria should be carefully considered when assessing cachexia in patients with cancer.</p><p>This trial was registered at the PROSPERO as CRD42023435474.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Nutrition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831324001169/pdfft?md5=0b2eb374e7a7c75e8af1efcab98e8e1d&pid=1-s2.0-S2161831324001169-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831324001169\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831324001169","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prevalence of and Survival with Cachexia among Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Cachexia is associated with lower overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer; however, the relationship between the two is reported to differ according to the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia.
We aimed to investigate 1) the difference in the prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer and 2) the association between cachexia and OS, depending on the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia in patients with cancer. We searched PubMed and Web of Science from their inception until July 31, 2023, to identify eligible studies. We conducted a systematic review of the prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer and performed a meta-analysis to investigate its relationship with OS. A total of 125 articles comprising 137,960 patients were included in the systematic review, and 26 articles consisting of 11,118 patients underwent meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer was 33.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.8, 33.3); however, it varied according to the definitive criteria for diagnosing cachexia (13.9%–56.5%). According to the Fearon 2011 criteria, the prevalence of cachexia was associated with a high hazard ratio (HR) for OS compared with that of noncachexia [HR: 1.58 (95% CI: 1.45, 1.73)]; according to the other criteria, the HR was 2.78 (95% CI: 1.88, 4.11), indicating significant subgroup differences (P = 0.006). The dose–response curve indicated that the HR for OS plateaued at a cachexia prevalence range of 40%–50% (l-shaped relationship). The prevalence of cachexia in patients with cancer may vary depending on the definitive criteria used to diagnose cachexia. The HR for OS was higher for low cachexia prevalence. The definitive criteria should be carefully considered when assessing cachexia in patients with cancer.
This trial was registered at the PROSPERO as CRD42023435474.
期刊介绍：
Advances in Nutrition (AN/Adv Nutr) publishes focused reviews on pivotal findings and recent research across all domains relevant to nutritional scientists and biomedical researchers. This encompasses nutrition-related research spanning biochemical, molecular, and genetic studies using experimental animal models, domestic animals, and human subjects. The journal also emphasizes clinical nutrition, epidemiology and public health, and nutrition education. Review articles concentrate on recent progress rather than broad historical developments.
In addition to review articles, AN includes Perspectives, Letters to the Editor, and supplements. Supplement proposals require pre-approval by the editor before submission. The journal features reports and position papers from the American Society for Nutrition, summaries of major government and foundation reports, and Nutrient Information briefs providing crucial details about dietary requirements, food sources, deficiencies, and other essential nutrient information. All submissions with scientific content undergo peer review by the Editors or their designees prior to acceptance for publication.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
