MedicineEurope PMC

Heuristic editor, no API keyVerdict: Notable

Sarcopenia Is Associated With Severe Treatment Toxicity and Mortality in Older Adults With Advanced Cancer: A Secondary Analysis

Original title: Sarcopenia Is Associated With Severe Treatment Toxicity and Mortality in Older Adults With Advanced Cancer: A Secondary Analysis.

Background Sarcopenia, a loss of muscle strength, quantity and performance that occurs primarily from ageing or secondary to disease, is hypothesized to worsen treatment outcomes in patients with cancer.

By Mattick, Mohammed, Li +16Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle

Score█████░░░░░5.1

Key numbers

  • 61% male
  • 94% non-Hispanic white
  • 95% confidence interval

VerdictWorth a reader's time today.

Read the originalPDF

Abstract

Background Sarcopenia, a loss of muscle strength, quantity and performance that occurs primarily from ageing or secondary to disease, is hypothesized to worsen treatment outcomes in patients with cancer. Most published studies, however, focus solely on muscle quantity in patients under 70. Here, we evaluate the association between sarcopenia, defined as both a loss of strength and muscle quantity, and treatment tolerability in older adults receiving cancer treatment. Methods This secondary analysis examines data from a randomized clinical trial evaluating a geriatric assessment intervention (NCT02054741). Older adults (≥ 70 years) with advanced cancer starting a new treatment regimen were recruited from community oncology practices across the United States. We analysed data from 161 participants in the usual care arm with baseline standard of care computed tomography (CT) scans. Sarcopenia was defined by reduced strength (chair stand > 16.7 s for five rises) and either a reduction in muscle quantity (skeletal muscle index [SMI] 13.5 s). Treatment toxicity was assessed via Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0. Results Among 161 participants (mean age: 76.6 ± 4.7; 61% male, 94% non-Hispanic white), 57% (91/161) met criteria for sarcopenia, of which 59% (54/91) were considered severe. Sarcopenia was associated with deficits in multiple geriatric assessment domains (nutrition, activities of daily living, instrumental activities and cognition; p < 0.05). In multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, patients with sarcopenia were more likely to experience severe non-hematologic toxicities (Grades 3-5; OR = 2.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-4.47). In participants receiving first-line therapy, sarcopenia was associated with worse 1-year survival (46% survival [95% CI: 35%-55%]; HR = 2.12 [95% CI: 1.14-3.93]; 49 events) compared to those without sarcopenia (60% survival [95% CI: 48%-70%]; 28 events). SMI alone was not significantly associated with severe nonhematologic toxicity or survival. Conclusion Sarcopenia is highly prevalent in older patients with cancer and is associated with severe toxicity and mortality. Our findings highlight the importance of assessing muscle strength, quantity, quality and performance when evaluating older adults with cancer. Trial registration CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NCT02054741.

Lindsey J Mattick, Mostafa Mohammed, Chin-Shang Li, Rachael G Tylock, Kah Poh Loh, Marie A Flannery, Luke J Peppone, Po-Ju Lin, Marcus D Goncalves, Bette J Caan, Elizabeth M Cespedes Feliciano, Karteek Popuri, Mirza Faisal Beg, James D Bearden, Jeffrey Berenberg, Khalil Katato, Karen M Mustian, Supriya G Mohile, Richard F Dunne

The editor's rubric

Heuristic review

DimensionLevelWeightWhat that level means
Leverage██░░░ 210%Reusable within one subfield (a technique, dataset, or protocol a few groups will adopt).
Magnitude██░░░ 220%Solid incremental gain on a meaningful problem.
Evidence█████ 532%Definitive: phase 3 randomized evidence on hard endpoints, multi-lab replication, or community verification at scale.
Novelty██░░░ 28%A new combination of known ideas.
Trajectory██░░░ 25%Some room to improve with obvious engineering.
Stakes███░░ 325%Meaningful benefit to many people within a few years.

Editor’s rationale

Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: novelty (open problem); design (randomized, registered); verification (confidence interval, p-value, error bars); stakes (mortality, major disease, prevention or cure).

How the score was computed

rank-2026-09-29

Score█████░░░░░5.1

Score = 10 × (80% × adjusted merit / 10 + 10% × attention + 10% × freshness)

Merit
6.4 / 10
Weighted rubric, evidence-gated.
Adjusted merit
5.2 / 10
Shrunk toward the desk prior by editor confidence (48%).
Attention
0%
Citations, upvotes, points, mentions.
Freshness
98%
Half-life decay since publication.
  • Citations0 (reference 20, via openalex, Oct 1, 2026, 06:17 UTC)
  • Field-weighted citation impact0 (reference 3, via openalex, Oct 1, 2026, 06:17 UTC)

The record

  • Reviewed by heuristic-v2 on Oct 1, 2026, 06:17 UTC. Paper type: clinical.
  • Categories: research-article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Journal Article, Humans, Neoplasms, Geriatric Assessment, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female
  • BRIEF, No.5 in the Medicine edition of October 1, 2026.