Chemotherapy-Induced Sarcopenia

Sarcopenia is being consistently recognized as a condition not only associated with the presence of a malignancy but also induced by the oncologic therapies. Due to its negative impact on tolerance to chemotherapy and final outcome in both medical and surgical cancer patients, sarcopenia should be always considered and prevented, and, if recognized, should be appropriately treated. A CT scan at the level of the third lumbar vertebra, using an appropriate software, is the more common and easily available way to diagnose sarcopenia. It is now acknowledged that mechanisms involved in iatrogenic sarcopenia are several and depending on the type of molecule included in the regimen of chemotherapy, different pharmacologic antidotes will be required in the future. However, progression of the disease and the associated malnutrition per se are able to progressively erode the muscle mass and since sarcopenia is the hallmark of cachexia, the therapeutic approach to chemotherapy-induced sarcopenia parallels that of cachexia. This approach mainly relies on those strategies which are able to increase the lean body mass and include the use of anabolic/anti-inflammatory agents, nutritional interventions, physical exercise and, even better, a combination of different therapies. There are some phase II studies and some small controlled randomized trials which have validated these treatments using single agents or combined multimodal approaches. While these approaches may require the cooperation of some specialists (nutritionists with a specific knowledge on pathophysiology of catabolic states, accredited exercise physiologists and physiotherapists), the oncologist too should directly enter these issues to coordinate the choice and priority of the treatments. Who better than the oncologist knows the natural history of the disease, its evolution, and the probability of tolerance and response to the oncologic therapy? Only the oncologist knows when it is essential to potentiate any effort to better achieve a control of the disease, using all the available armamentarium, and when the condition is too advanced and hence requires a more palliative than supporting care. The oncologist also knows when to expect a gastrointestinal toxicity (mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) and hence it is more convenient using a parenteral than an enteral nutritional intervention or, on the contrary, when patient is suitable for discharge from hospital and oral supplements should be promptly tested for compliance and then prescribed. When patients are at high risk for malnutrition or if, regardless of their nutritional status, they are candidate to aggressive and potentially toxic treatments, they should undergo a jointed evaluation by the oncologist and the nutritionist and physical therapist to assess together a combined approach. In conclusion, the treatment of both cancer- or chemotherapy-related sarcopenia represents a challenge for the modern oncologist who must be able to coordinate a new panel of specialists with the same skill necessary to decide the priority of different oncologic treatments within a complex multidisciplinary context.