Evaluation of Muscle Mass and Malnutrition in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition Criteria and Comparing Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis and Computed Tomography Measurements

Daniel de Luis Roman,Juan José López Gómez,Marife Muñoz,David Primo,Olatz Izaola,Israel Sánchez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16173035

IF: 5.9

2024-09-08

Nutrients

Abstract:Objectives: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the discrepancies between bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and computed tomography (CT) in assessing skeletal muscle mass and identifying low muscle mass in patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: This study recruited 137 patients with colorectal cancer from February 2028 to December 2023. CT scans were analyzed at the Lumbar 3 vertebral level to determine the area of skeletal muscle, which was then utilized to estimate whole-body skeletal muscle mass. [BIA] was also employed to measure skeletal muscle. Both skeletal muscle mass values [kg] were divided by height2 [m2] to calculate the skeletal muscle index [SMI, kg/m2], denoted as SMI-CT and SMI-BIA, respectively. Results: The median age was 69.8 + 9.5 years, with the sex ratio being 88/49 [male/female]. Whereas more than one-third of the patients were classified as malnourished based on the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition GLIM-CT criteria using L3-SMI [n = 36.5%], fewer patients were classified as malnourished based on GLIM-BIA using SMI-BIA [n = 19.0%]. According to the CT analysis [low SMI-L3], 52 [38.0%] patients were diagnosed as having poor muscle mass, whereas only 18 [13.1%] patients were identified as having low muscle mass using BIA [low SMIBIA]. The measured SMI showed a positive association with SMI-CT in all patients [r = 0.63, p < 0.001]. Using Bland-Altman evaluation, a significant mean bias of 0.45 + 1.41 kg/m2 [95% CI 0.21-0.70; p < 0.001] between SMI-BIA and SMI-CT was reported. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to detect poor muscle mass using SMI-BIA with CT as the gold standard. The area under the curve (AUC) for SMI-BIA in identifying poor muscle mass was 0.714 (95% CI: 0.624-0.824), with a good cut-off value of 8.1 kg/m2, yielding a sensitivity of 68.3% and a specificity of 66.9%. Conclusions: BIA generally overestimates skeletal muscle mass in colorectal cancer patients when contrasted to CT. As a result, BIA may underestimate the prevalence of poor muscle mass and malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria in this patient population.