P355 - PREDICTORS OF CANCER-RELATED MUSCLE LOSS: AN INTERNATIONAL DELPHI STUDY

P355

PREDICTORS OF CANCER-RELATED MUSCLE LOSS: AN INTERNATIONAL DELPHI STUDY

A. R. Curtis¹, J. Bauer², B. J. Baguley¹, R. M. Daly¹, L. Denehy^3,4,5, L. Edbrooke^3,4,5, L. Orellana⁶, C. M. Prado⁷, S. Sharma⁸, N. Kiss^1,* on behalf of The EPICCS Working Group

¹Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Burwood, ²Department of Nutrition Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, ³Physiotherapy Department, University of Melbourne, ⁴Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, ⁵Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, ⁶Biostatistics Unit Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia, ⁷Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada, ⁸Medical Oncology, Grampians Health, Ballarat, Australia

Rationale: This study engaged international experts to establish a minimum set of predictors of muscle loss for consideration in a screening tool.

Methods: A 2-round international Delphi study of experts in cancer-related muscle loss. Predictors for inclusion in round 1 were identified from a scoping review. Participants rated the importance of each predictor on a 9-point Likert scale (‘not important’ – ‘critical’) and agreement (‘strongly disagree’ – ‘strongly agree) with operationalisation of the predictor into a screening tool question and response. Consensus was achieved to retain the predictor in the screening tool if >70% of participants rated it 7-9 (critical to include) after 2 rounds. No predictors were removed between rounds. Participants could suggest additional predictors in round 1. If >70% of participants rated the questions/responses 7-9 (strongly agree) they were retained after 2 rounds. The 10-person steering committee reviewed results and made revisions for rating in round two.

Results: Thirty-three participants from 10 countries completed round 1 (46% physicians, 27% dietitians). Twenty-five predictors were included in round 1, seven were rated critical (low physical performance, poor physical function, reduced energy intake, unintentional weight loss, reduced muscle strength, reduced appetite, prolonged immobilisation) and 17 important. Three new predictors were added after round 1.Of the proposed corresponding screening tool questions and responses, two achieved high agreement (poor physical performance and reduced appetite). The round two survey will be completed in April.

Conclusion: Round two results will be reviewed by the steering committee. Screening tool questions and responses that achieve high agreement will be tested for face validity with consumers. Next steps involve determining the optimal set of questions with the highest sensitivity and specificity to predict muscle loss to form the screening tool.

Disclosure of Interest: None declared