You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Skeletal muscle morphology in patients receiving primary versus interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Skeletal muscle morphology in patients receiving primary versus interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer
  1. Christelle Schofield1,2,
  2. Pedro Lopez3,
  3. Paul A Cohen4,5,
  4. Dennis R Taaffe1,2,
  5. Robert Usher Newton1,2,
  6. Daniel A Galvão1,2,
  7. Emily Jeffery1,6,
  8. Tarek M Meniawy5,7 and
  9. Carolyn J Peddle-McIntyre1,2
  1. 1Exercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia
  2. 2School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia
  3. 3Pleural Medicine Unit, Institute for Respiratory Health, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
  4. 4St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
  5. 5School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
  6. 6School of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia
  7. 7Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christelle Schofield, Exercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia; c.schofield{at}ecu.edu.au

Abstract

Objective Our primary aim was to compare muscle morphology (skeletal muscle mass and density) between patients who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery versus interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Secondarily, we explored the associations of muscle morphology with survival outcomes.

Methods We retrospectively analysed computed tomography (CT) images for 88 ovarian cancer patients (aged 38–89 years) to calculate skeletal muscle index (cm2/m2) and skeletal muscle density (Hounsfield units (HU)). A skeletal muscle index of <38.5 cm2/m2 and skeletal muscle density of <33.7 HU were classified as low. Analyses included repeated measures analysis of covariance and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results At baseline, 44.3% of patients had low skeletal muscle index and 50.6% had low skeletal muscle density, with interval surgery patients having significantly lower mean skeletal muscle density than primary surgery patients (32.2±8.9 vs 37.3±8.6 HU, p=0.014). Although both groups had similar reductions in skeletal muscle index following treatment (p=0.49), primary surgery patients had a greater reduction in skeletal muscle density compared with interval surgery patients (−2.4 HU, 95% CI −4.3 to −0.5, p=0.016). Patients who experienced skeletal muscle density loss >2% during treatment (HR 5.16, 95% CI 1.33 to 20.02) and had low skeletal muscle density post-treatment (HR 58.87, 95% CI 3.70 to 935.68) had significantly worse overall survival.

Conclusion Low skeletal muscle index and skeletal muscle density were prevalent at ovarian cancer diagnosis. While both groups experienced muscle mass loss, greater reductions in skeletal muscle density occurred in patients undergoing primary surgery. In addition, skeletal muscle density loss during treatment and low skeletal muscle density post-treatment were associated with poorer overall survival. Supportive care involving resistance exercise targeting muscle hypertrophic drive, and nutrition counseling during and after ovarian cancer treatment may help preserve/enhance muscle mass and density.

  • Ovarian Cancer

Data availability statement

No data are available.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-004425

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    No data are available.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Authors’ contributions: CS: guarantor, conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, project administration, writing – original draft; PL: formal analysis, writing – original draft; PAC: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing – review & editing; DRT: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing – review & editing; RUN: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing – review & editing; DAG: conceptualization, methodology, writing – review & editing; EJ: formal analysis, writing – review & editing; TMM: conceptualization, methodology, writing – review & editing; CM: conceptualization, methodology, project administration, supervision, writing – review & editing.

    • Funding CS was financially supported by an Edith Cowan University Ph.D. Scholarship, Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and Western Australian Cancer Council Ph.D. Top-up Scholarship.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.