PP105 - WHICH SCREENING OR DIAGNOSTIC CRITERION IS MOST EFFECTIVE FOR DETECTING SARCOPENIA IN ONCOLOGY PATIENTS?

PP105

WHICH SCREENING OR DIAGNOSTIC CRITERION IS MOST EFFECTIVE FOR DETECTING SARCOPENIA IN ONCOLOGY PATIENTS?

R. Fernandez-Jimenez^1,* on behalf of Anyvida Group, P. Guirado-Pelaez¹, I. Vegas -Aguilar¹, M. D. M. Amaya-Campos¹, A. J. Martínez -Ortega², M. C. Roque -Cuéllar², S. García-Rey², I. Jimenez -Varo³, M. D. C. Galindo -Gallardo³, I. Gonzalo-Montesinos⁴, J. M. Garcia-Almeida¹ on behalf of Anyvida Group

¹Endocrinologia y nutricion, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, ²Endocrinologia y nutricion, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio, ³Endocrinologia y nutricion, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, ⁴Endocrinologia y nutricion, Hospital Universitario Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain

Rationale: Sarcopenia is highly prevalent in oncology patients and associated with poor outcomes. Early detection is essential, but commonly used tools such as SARC-F show limited sensitivity. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of SARC-F, phase angle (PhA), and rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RF-CSA).

Methods: Cross-sectional study including 445 oncology patients. Sarcopenia was defined according to EWGSOP2 criteria. SARC-F, bioelectrical impedance analysis-derived PhA, and nutritional ultrasound-measured RF-CSA were assessed. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using ROC curves, calculating area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and optimal cut-offs (Youden index).

Results: Sarcopenia prevalence was 23.8% (n=106), whereas SARC-F identified only 13.8% (n=69), indicating underestimation. SARC-F showed low sensitivity (26.2%) and high specificity (90.9%). PhA and RF-CSA demonstrated better diagnostic performance. Using EWGSOP2 as reference, both showed similar accuracy, with RF-CSA presenting higher specificity, particularly in men (79.2%). Sex-specific differences were observed, with better performance in men. When SARC-F was used as reference, PhA outperformed RF-CSA (AUC 0.787 vs 0.665).

Image:

Conclusion: SARC-F has limited screening utility due to low sensitivity. In contrast, PhA and RF-CSA show better diagnostic performance and complementary roles. PhA may be useful for screening, while RF-CSA may serve as a confirmatory tool, with relevant sex-specific differences.

References: Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019 Jan 1;48(1):16–31.

Disclosure of Interest: None declared