Prado, Carla M.

ABSTRACT Skeletal muscle (SM) is an integral organ component in the pathophysiology of many acute and chronic diseases. But is there a ‘gold’ standard or accepted reference method for quantifying the amount and composition of human SM mass? Exploring that question led us to recognize the existence of a SM measurement paradigm that divides methods into two broad categories, in vitro and in vivo. In vitro methods quantify SM mass, weighing intact muscles as part of whole cadaver evaluations, only 51 of which are reported in medical literature with no recent additions. In vivo methods are used to evaluate SM in vivo, and two tiers were revealed in our analyses. An upper tier that included three methods considered ‘reference’ approaches for their accuracy and precision: computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry. A lower in vivo method tier included bioimpedance analysis, three‐dimensional imaging, several approaches involving creatine metabolism, ultrasound and anthropometry. A feature common to all of the lower tier methods is their need for calibration or validation against reference approaches in the upper in vivo method tier. A critical review of the three in vivo reference methods in the upper tier revealed widely variable SM volume/mass acquisition protocols, image analysis methods and applied terminology. Some reports espouse an upper tier reference method as the ‘gold’ standard while providing minimal details of exactly how and what was measured, thus making replication in follow‐up studies difficult. Any technical issues related to an in vivo reference method are propagated to the in vivo methods in the lower tier that are calibrated or validated against them. Our review of in vivo reference methods of quantifying SM mass and composition led us to two broad recommendations. First, published reports including these reference methods should provide enough details related to acquisition and analysis protocols so that readers can replicate their findings. Second, an effort should be made to apply precise terminology in published reports in order to avoid confusion on exactly what was measured; suggestions are made on definitions of commonly used terms when referring to body composition compartments. Lastly, because there is no consensus on what constitutes a ‘gold’ standard for SM measurement, we suggest expert groups convene in the future to recommend optimum approaches and working guidelines for quantifying muscle mass and composition in vivo.

Abstract Background: Pancreatic cancer is associated with development of cachexia, a wasting syndrome thought to limit survival. Few studies have longitudinally quantified peripheral tissues or identified biomarkers predictive of future tissue wasting. Methods: Adipose and muscle tissue were measured by computed tomography (CT) at diagnosis and 50 to 120 days later in 164 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Tissue changes and survival were evaluated by Cox proportional hazards regression. Baseline levels of circulating markers were examined in relation to future tissue wasting. Results: Compared with patients in the bottom quartile of muscle change per 30 days (average gain of 0.8 ± 2.0 cm2), those in the top quartile (average loss of 12.9 ± 4.9 cm2) had a hazard ratio (HR) for death of 2.01 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12–3.62]. Patients in the top quartile of muscle attenuation change (average decrease of 4.9 ± 2.4 Hounsfield units) had an HR of 2.19 (95% CI, 1.18–4.04) compared with those in the bottom quartile (average increase of 2.4 ± 1.6 Hounsfield units). Changes in adipose tissue were not associated with survival. Higher plasma branched chain amino acids (BCAA; P = 0.004) and lower monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1; P = 0.005) at diagnosis were associated with greater future muscle loss. Conclusions: In patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, muscle loss and decrease in muscle density in 2 to 4 months after diagnosis were associated with reduced survival. BCAAs and MCP-1 levels at diagnosis were associated with subsequent muscle loss. Impact: BCAAs and MCP-1 levels at diagnosis could identify a high-risk group for future tissue wasting.

Abstract The term sarcopenia was introduced in 1988. The original definition was a “muscle loss” of the appendicular muscle mass in the older people as measured by dual energy x‐ray absorptiometry (DXA). In 2010, the definition was altered to be low muscle mass together with low muscle function and this was agreed upon as reported in a number of consensus papers. The Society of Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders supports the recommendations of more recent consensus conferences, i.e. that rapid screening, such as with the SARC‐F questionnaire, should be utilized with a formal diagnosis being made by measuring grip strength or chair stand together with DXA estimation of appendicular muscle mass (indexed for height2). Assessments of the utility of ultrasound and creatine dilution techniques are ongoing. Use of ultrasound may not be easily reproducible. Primary sarcopenia is aging associated (mediated) loss of muscle mass. Secondary sarcopenia (or disease‐related sarcopenia) has predominantly focused on loss of muscle mass without the emphasis on muscle function. Diseases that can cause muscle wasting (i.e. secondary sarcopenia) include malignant cancer, COPD, heart failure, and renal failure and others. Management of sarcopenia should consist of resistance exercise in combination with a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 g/kg/day. There is insufficient evidence that vitamin D and anabolic steroids are beneficial. These recommendations apply to both primary (age‐related) sarcopenia and secondary (disease related) sarcopenia. Secondary sarcopenia also needs appropriate treatment of the underlying disease. It is important that primary care health professionals become aware of and make the diagnosis of age‐related and disease‐related sarcopenia. It is important to address the risk factors for sarcopenia, particularly low physical activity and sedentary behavior in the general population, using a life‐long approach. There is a need for more clinical research into the appropriate measurement for muscle mass and the management of sarcopenia. Accordingly, this position statement provides recommendations on the management of sarcopenia and how to progress the knowledge and recognition of sarcopenia.