Sarcopenia in Patients With Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Retrospective Cohort Studies

Abstract

BackgroundAs a metastasis cancer that happens up to 70% of the cancer patients, spinal metastasis is drawing attention for its significant impairment to health. There exist several predictive models designed to estimate mortality in spinal metastasis patients but they are reported with limited accuracy. In recent years, some retrospective cohort studies have been carried out to associate sarcopenia with mortality in spinal metastasis.IntroductionAs a risk factor leading to adverse events in many diseases, sarcopenia was considered to significantly impact on patients with spinal metastasis in mortality by some scientists. We aimed to look through the current evidence and use statistic measures to value the role of sarcopenia in spinal metastasis. In this study, we are going to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available retrospective cohort studies where sarcopenia is assessed for outcomes in spinal metastasis patients.MethodsOn October 7, 2021, we performed a search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We set no restrictions on language, date or areas. Results were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI by random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity and stability of results.ResultsOf the 4,196 papers screened, 10 retrospective cohort studies were included, with a total of 1,674 patients. Results showed that sarcopenia was associated with higher overall mortality (OR, 1.60; 95% CI 1.35–1.90) and lower overall survival (HR, 2.08; 95% CI 1.55–2.80). The sensitivity analysis proved the stability of results in terms of publication years, region, time of diagnosis, sample size, female rate, measurement and follow up period.ConclusionsSarcopenia is a robust indicator of mortality in spinal metastasis patients and it might be applied to decision-making tools to assess survival probability and adjust the extent of treatment, while a lack of higher level of evidence is existing.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42021283348.