2018
DOI: 10.1186/s41241-018-0063-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CT assessment of nutritional status and lean body mass in gastric and esophageal cancer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fluid overload can affect the accuracy of these anthropometric data. Moreover, recent works, especially in patients with cancer, highlighted their poor correlation with cross-imaging measures [28,29]. Recently, Yao et al found that MAMC, TSF and BMI were not independently associated with survival in patients with decompensated cirrhosis [30].…”
Section: Which Tools Do Not Work In Chronic Liver Diseases?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fluid overload can affect the accuracy of these anthropometric data. Moreover, recent works, especially in patients with cancer, highlighted their poor correlation with cross-imaging measures [28,29]. Recently, Yao et al found that MAMC, TSF and BMI were not independently associated with survival in patients with decompensated cirrhosis [30].…”
Section: Which Tools Do Not Work In Chronic Liver Diseases?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…24 Meanwhile, MUAC has better sensitivity and accuracy (sensitivity 62.2%, specificity 68.8%, and accuracy 65.2%). 24 Tumor mass or edema might also affect the weight of patients with cancer. The MUAC should be utilized to identify malnutrition in addition to the BMI since MUAC is shown to be independent of tumor size.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The side effect of cancer treatment modalities, including loss of appetite and alterations in absorption and metabolism of nutrients in patients with cancer, can contribute to decreased lean body mass 23. Body mass index has poor sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosis of low lean body mass compared with measurement by computed tomography in patients with cancer (sensitivity 18.4%, specificity 96.7%, and accuracy 54.3%) 24. Meanwhile, MUAC has better sensitivity and accuracy (sensitivity 62.2%, specificity 68.8%, and accuracy 65.2%) 24.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The studies included in the review utilized different body composition measurement techniques, with computed tomography being the most common (18 studies), followed by bioelectric impedance analysis (10 studies), and one study employing dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Substantial variations were observed in study design, sarcopenia definitions, cut-off points, and muscle measurement techniques utilized across the studies [ 60 ].…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%