PP433 - PHASE ANGLE IS ASSOCIATED WITH MUSCLE STRUCTURE, BUT NOT WITH STRENGTH AND MOBILITY IN BREAST TUMOUR WOMEN: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM A CASE-CONTROL STUDY
PP433
PHASE ANGLE IS ASSOCIATED WITH MUSCLE STRUCTURE, BUT NOT WITH STRENGTH AND MOBILITY IN BREAST TUMOUR WOMEN: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM A CASE-CONTROL STUDY
S. L. da Costa1, A. H. Verdi1, D. I. M. Cavalcante2, C. D. C. C. Farias3, O. S. Q. Macedo4, G. D. A. Barbosa4, S. M. M. L. Verde5, D. CAETANO GONÇALVES6,*
1Postgraduate Program in Nutrition, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, 2Patology, 3Breast Clinic at Assis Chatoubrean Teaching Maternity Hospital, Universidade Federal do Ceará, 41Graduate Program in Nutrition and Health,, 5Postgraduate Program in Nutrition and Health, Universidade Estadual do Ceará, Fortaleza, 6Biosciences, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Santos, Brazil
Rationale: Given the need to investigate muscle morphology in women with breast tumors (BT), in order to mitigate toxicity and improve prognosis, this study was designed to assess the relationship between phase angle (PhA), handgrip strength (HGS), appendicular lean mass (ALM), and mobility as measured by the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test in BT.
Methods: This is a case-control study conducted in Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, involving adult women (aged 20 to 59 years) stratified into: case group (CA, n=25, newly diagnosed with breast cancer) and control group (CO, n=53, diagnosed with a benign breast nodule). Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) was performed to obtain PhA, which was standardized (standardized phase angle, SPA) according to body mass index (BMI) and age. Initially, variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney test (due to non-normal distribution). Subsequently, a linear regression model was applied: Y (ALM, HGS, and TUG) ~ Age + BMI (underweight, normal weight, or overweight) + PhA + SPA
Results: A difference between groups was observed only for age (CA: 50.9±6.4 years; CO: 37.2±11.8 years; p<0.05); no differences were found between groups for PhA, SPA, HGS, ALM, or TUG. This enabled an integrated analysis of the sample within our predictive model. Accordingly, PhA (β=8.56, p<0.02) and SPA (β=−5.25, p=0.03) were identified as predictors of appendicular lean mass, but not of handgrip strength (p=0.11 and 0.15, respectively) or TUG performance (p=0.47 and 0.44, respectively).
Conclusion: These findings indicate that PhA and SPA may represent promising early markers for detecting muscle impairment, particularly in pre-sarcopenic stages.
Disclosure of Interest: None declared