The predictive and prognostic role of radiologically defined sarcopenia in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and multi-level meta-analysis
Rattachement africain : nl. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Radiologically defined sarcopenia (RS), defined as a lack of skeletal muscle mass (SMM) measured on cross-sectional CT or MR imaging, is increasingly recognized as a significant prognostic determinant in head and neck cancer (HNC). A systematic literature search of Embase and Medline was performed to identify studies investigating the impact of pre-treatment sarcopenia on the prognosis of HNC patients. All available survival and other treatment-related outcomes were extracted and analyzed in a multi-level meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies comprising data from 14,804 patients were analyzed. The overall estimated log OR was 0.644 (95% CI = 0.505-0.783, p < 0.001), suggesting that patients with RS have a higher risk of worse outcomes. In 43 studies there was a significant effect of sarcopenia on survival, with a log OR of 0.808 (95% CI = 0.509-1.107, p < 0.001). In 15 studies RS was shown to be a risk factor for treatment-related complications (log OR = 0.669, 95% CI = 0.441-0.897, p < 0.001). We conclude that pre-treatment radiologically defined sarcopenia is a robust prognostic and predictive factor in HNC patients and is associated with worse survival and increased risk of treatment-related complications.
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
- The predictive and prognostic role of radiologically defined sarcopenia in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and multi-level meta-analysis
- Date Crossref
- 02/06/2025
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- 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.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.