Age-related and cancer-related sarcopenia: is there a difference?
Le résumé fourni par la source
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is the attempt to differentiating the pathophysiologic and clinical features of the aging-related sarcopenia from cancer-related sarcopenia. In fact, there is some controversy among the experts mainly regarding two points: is always sarcopenia, even that aging-related one, the expression of a generalized disease or may exist independently and without major alteration of the muscle function? Are always aging-related and cancer-related sarcopenia completely separated entities? RECENT FINDINGS: Literature shows that sarcopenia, defined as simple skeletal muscle mass loss, may range from a mainly focal problem which is common in many healthy elderly people, to a component of a complex multiorgan syndrome as cancer cachexia. Disuse, malnutrition and (neuro)degenerative processes can account for most of the aging-related sarcopenias while systemic inflammation and secretion of cancer-and immune-related molecules play an additional major role in cachexia. SUMMARY: A multimodal approach including physical exercise and optimized nutritional support are the key measures to offset sarcopenia with some contribution by the anti-inflammatory drugs in cancer patients. Results are more promising in elderly patients and are still pending for cancer patients where a more specific approach will only rely on the identification and contrast of the key mediators of the cachectic process.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Age-related and cancer-related sarcopenia: is there a difference?
- Date Crossref
- 21/03/2024
- Éditeur
- Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.