Introduction: The role of sarcopenia in malignant cutaneous melanoma is unclear. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to analyze the prevalence and clinical role of sarcopenia in patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma based on a large cohort. Methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and SCOPUS databases were checked for relationships between sarcopenia and clinical outcomes in melanoma up to September 2021. Overall, 6 studies including 719 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: The prevalence of sarcopenia was 40.23%. Sarcopenia did not influence dose-limiting toxicity of treatment, hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% CI (0.70–1.47). Sarcopenia was associated with lower progression-free survival (PFS): HR 1.49, 95% CI (0.98–2.26), and lower overall survival (OS): HR 1.67, 95% CI (1.11–2.52). Conclusions: The cumulative prevalence of sarcopenia in malignant cutaneous melanoma is 40.77%. Sarcopenia is slightly associated with PFS and OS and it is not associated with treatment toxicity.

Sarcopenia plays an important role in oncology. There is great evidence based on large meta-analyses that sarcopenia can predict relevant outcomes in several tumors [1-6]. For example, sarcopenia is associated with treatment toxicity in breast cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma [1, 2]. In patients who underwent surgical resection of tumors, sarcopenia predicts occurrence of major postoperative complications. So far, in esophageal cancer, sarcopenia is associated with overall morbidity (RR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.01–1.33), respiratory complications (RR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.21–2.22), and anastomotic leaks (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.10–1.76) [3]. Similar results were reported for gastric cancer and colorectal cancer [4, 5].

Furthermore, sarcopenia is a predictive factor for survival rates in oncology. Sarcopenia is associated with overall survival (OS) in several tumors. This phenomenon was observed in several tumors, for instance, in esophageal cancer: hazard ratio (HR) = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.35, 1.85 [3], gastric cancer: HR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.89–2.38 [4], and pancreatic cancer: HR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.27–1.74, p < 0.001 [6].

The current data about sarcopenia in malignant cutaneous melanoma are based on small studies and, therefore, cannot apply as evident. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to provide evident data about associations between sarcopenia and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma treated with immunotherapy.

Data Acquisition

For the present analysis, a search in MEDLINE library, Cochrane, and SCOPUS databases was performed for studies analyzed associations between sarcopenia and relevant clinical outcomes in melanoma up to September 2021. All papers within the last 10 years were evaluated. Figure 1 demonstrates a flowchart of the data acquisition. For the data collection, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) was used [7]. The following search criteria were used: “sarcopenia OR low skeletal muscle mass OR body composition OR skeletal muscle index AND melanoma.”

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flowchart of the data acquisition.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flowchart of the data acquisition.

Close modal

The primary search identified 124 items.

Inclusion criteria for the present meta-analysis were as follows:

  • Original investigation involved human patients with cutaneous melanoma;

  • Estimation of pretreatment sarcopenia defined by CT images;

  • Treatment with immunotherapy in a palliative setting;

  • Reported data regarding influence of sarcopenia on relevant outcomes (hazard and/or odds ratios and 95% CI) including OS, progression-free survival (PFS), treatment toxicity;

  • Exclusion criteria were as follows:

  • Review articles and/or letters;

  • Case reports;

  • Non-English language;

  • Experimental studies;

  • Absence of statistical data about influence of sarcopenia on outcomes (hazard and/or odds ratios and 95% CI).

Duplicate articles (n = 109) were removed. Furthermore, the full texts of the remaining 15 articles were checked for possible data inclusion. Overall, 6 articles met the inclusion criteria [8-14]. The following data were acquired for the analysis: authors, year of publication, number of patients, prevalence of sarcopenia, and statistical data about influence of sarcopenia on relevant outcomes (hazard/odds ratios and 95% CI).

Meta-Analysis

The methodological quality of the included 6 studies was checked by two observers (H.-J.M. and A.S.) using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (Table 2) [15]. The meta-analysis was performed by using the RevMan 5.3 software (Computer program, version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) [16, 17]. Heterogeneity was calculated by means of the inconsistency index I2. Furthermore, DerSimonian and Laird [18] random-effects models with inverse-variance weights were performed without corrections.

Included Studies and Patients

Overall, 6 studies were included into the present meta-analysis. All of them were retrospective. NOS values among the studies were low, indicating a low risk of bias (Table 1). The included studies comprised 719 patients. There were 271 women (37.7%) and 421 men (58.6%). In 27 patients (3.7%), the gender was not reported. The mean age of the patients was 60.4 ± 5.3 years. In all studies, sarcopenia was defined as low skeletal muscle mass on pretreatment staging computed tomography. Different tests for estimation of sarcopenia were performed (Table 2).

Table 1.

The quality of the studies by NOS scale

The quality of the studies by NOS scale
The quality of the studies by NOS scale
Table 2.

Data regarding involved studies

Data regarding involved studies
Data regarding involved studies

Prevalence of Sarcopenia

The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 23.81% to 53.66%. The cumulative calculated prevalence among the studies was 40.23%, 95% CI (29.57–50.88%) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Reported prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with malignant cutaneous melanoma.

Fig. 2.

Reported prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with malignant cutaneous melanoma.

Close modal

Treatment Toxicity

Relationships between sarcopenia and occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) were investigated in 4 studies (595 patients). In 3 studies, treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) and in one study, therapy with an anticytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 monoclonal antibody (ipililumab) was performed. Sarcopenia was associated with DLT, HR 1.01, 95% CI (0.70–1.47) (Fig. 3). There was no heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 0%).

Fig. 3.

Association of sarcopenia with dose-limiting treatment toxicity in patients with malignant cutaneous melanoma, unadjusted HR.

Fig. 3.

Association of sarcopenia with dose-limiting treatment toxicity in patients with malignant cutaneous melanoma, unadjusted HR.

Close modal

Progression Free Survival

Associations between PFS and sarcopenia were analyzed in 3 studies (simple regression) including 411 patients. Patients with sarcopenia showed lower PFS, HR 1.49, 95% CI (0.98–2.26) (Fig. 4). Heterogeneity between the studies was moderate (I2 = 50%).

Fig. 4.

Association of sarcopenia with progression free survival in patients with malignant cutaneous melanoma, unadjusted HR.

Fig. 4.

Association of sarcopenia with progression free survival in patients with malignant cutaneous melanoma, unadjusted HR.

Close modal

Overall Survival

In 4 studies (495 patients), influence of sarcopenia on OS was analyzed. Sarcopenia was associated with lower OS (simple regression), HR 1.67, 95% CI (1.11–2.52) (Fig. 5). Heterogeneity between the studies was moderate (I2 = 51%).

Fig. 5.

Association of sarcopenia with progression free survival in patients with malignant cutaneous melanoma, unadjusted HR.

Fig. 5.

Association of sarcopenia with progression free survival in patients with malignant cutaneous melanoma, unadjusted HR.

Close modal

This is the first analysis regarding associations between sarcopenia identified on CT and relevant outcomes in malignant cutaneous melanoma treated with immunotherapy. As shown, sarcopenia is a frequent event in melanoma patient with an approximately prevalence of 40%. This value is comparable with the frequencies reported for other malignant tumors. For example, in malignant hematological diseases, it is 39.1% [19]. In esophageal cancer, it accounts 48% [20].

Furthermore, the present analysis shows that LSMM is only slightly associated with relevant outcomes in melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy. Notably, in contrast to other malignancies, the identified heterogeneity among the studies is low or moderate according to the guidelines from the Cochrane handbook [21]. This suggests that the present results can be applied as true. Interestingly, the identified associations between LSMM and clinical outcomes in melanoma are lower than those in other frequent malignant tumors. So far, in lung cancer, sarcopenia is associated with a shorter OS, HR, 2.23; 95% CI: 1.68–2.94 [22]. Similar results were reported for gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer [4-6]. This finding indicates that LSMM represents no great limitation in advanced malignant melanoma.

According to the literature, LSMM influences significantly DLT on chemotherapy [1]. For example, in breast cancer patients, sarcopenic patients had more grade 3–5 toxicity compared to nonsarcopenic patients with a risk ratio of 2.17, 95% CI (1.4–3.34) [1]. In metastatic colorectal cancer treated with regorafenib, LSMM showed a stronger association with DLT: OR = 15.60, 95% CI (1.72–141.17) [23]. Interestingly, the influence of sarcopenia on treatment related toxicity in melanoma is very low. It may be related to the fact that in the present analysis, relationships between treatment toxicity and LSMM were analyzed in patients received immunotherapy. This finding is in agreement with a recent large meta-analysis that showed that LSMM predicted DLT in patients treated with conventional (5-fluoruracil and/or platin-based) chemotherapy and several kinase inhibitors but not in patients treated with immunotherapy [24].

The results of the present analysis indicate radiological reports should also provide information regarding body composition. The estimation of skeletal muscle mass is not complex and is a by-product of staging computer tomography.

Importantly, LSMM/sarcopenia is a potential modifiable factor [25, 26]. Some previous studies showed that exercise and nutritional support program can reduce sarcopenia and improve clinical outcomes in oncologic patients [25, 26].

There are some limitations of the present analysis to address. All included studies are retrospective. Furthermore, the analysis includes only studies in English language. Additionally, some studies have patient selection bias. Finally, different measurements and cut-offs for LSMM/sarcopenia were used in the studies. However, this meta-analysis is based on the largest cohort to date and provides evident data about the role of LSMM in melanoma. Clearly, large prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

In conclusion, the cumulative prevalence of LSMM in malignant cutaneous melanoma is 40.23%. LSMM is slightly associated with PFS and OS and is not associated with treatment toxicity.

An ethics statement is not applicable because this study is based exclusively on published literature.

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

No funding was received.

Alexey Surov: study concept and design, acquisition of data, statistical analysis, and drafting of the manuscript. Hans-Jonas Meyer: acquisition of data and critical revision. Andreas Wienke: acquisition of data and statistical analysis.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

1.
Aleixo GFP, Williams GR, Nyrop KA, Muss HB, Shachar SS. Muscle composition and outcomes in patients with breast cancer: meta-analysis and systematic review.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
. 2019;177(3):569–79.
2.
Chang KV, Chen JD, Wu WT, Huang KC, Hsu CT, Han DS. Association between loss of skeletal muscle mass and mortality and tumor recurrence in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Liver Cancer
. 2018;7(1):90–103.
3.
Deng HY, Zha P, Peng L, Hou L, Huang KL, Li XY. Preoperative sarcopenia is a predictor of poor prognosis of esophageal cancer after esophagectomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
Dis Esophagus
. 2019;32(3):doy115.
4.
Kamarajah SK, Bundred J, Tan BHL. Body composition assessment and sarcopenia in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gastric Cancer
. 2019;22(1):10–22.
5.
Sun G, Li Y, Peng Y, Lu D, Zhang F, Cui X, et al. Can sarcopenia be a predictor of prognosis for patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Int J Colorectal Dis
. 2018;33(10):1419–27.
6.
Mintziras I, Miligkos M, Wächter S, Manoharan J, Maurer E, Bartsch DK. Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity are significantly associated with poorer overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Int J Surg
. 2018;59:19–26.
7.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
PLoS Med
. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
8.
Chu MP, Li Y, Ghosh S, Sass S, Smylie M, Walker J, et al. Body composition is prognostic and predictive of ipilimumab activity in metastatic melanoma.
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
. 2020;11(3):748–55.
9.
Cortellini A, Bozzetti F, Palumbo P, Brocco D, Di Marino P, Tinari N, et al. Weighing the role of skeletal muscle mass and muscle density in cancer patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors: a multicenter real-life study.
Sci Rep
. 2020;10(1):1456.
10.
Daly LE, Power DG, O’Reilly Á, Donnellan P, Cushen SJ, O’Sullivan K, et al. The impact of body composition parameters on ipilimumab toxicity and survival in patients with metastatic melanoma.
Br J Cancer
. 2017;116(3):310–7.
11.
Heidelberger V, Goldwasser F, Kramkimel N, Jouinot A, Huillard O, Boudou-Rouquette P, et al. Sarcopenic overweight is associated with early acute limiting toxicity of anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma patients.
Invest New Drugs
. 2017;35(4):436–41.
12.
Hu JB, Ravichandran S, Rushing C, Beasley GM, Hanks BA, Jung SH, et al. Higher BMI, but not sarcopenia, is associated with pembrolizumab-related toxicity in patients with advanced melanoma.
Anticancer Res
. 2020;40(9):5245–54.
13.
Sengul Samanci N, Çelik E, Bagcilar O, Erol BC, Bicki E, Oruc K, et al. Loss of skeletal muscle area and fat-free mass during dabrafenib/trametinib and vemurafenib/cobimetinib treatments in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic malignant melanoma.
Melanoma Res
. 2020;30(5):477–83.
14.
Young AC, Quach HT, Song H, Davis EJ, Moslehi JJ, Ye F, et al. Impact of body composition on outcomes from anti-PD1 +/− anti-CTLA-4 treatment in melanoma.
J Immunother Cancer
. 2020;8(2):e000821.
15.
Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2009. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm.
16.
Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PMM; Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
Ann Intern Med
. 2008;149(12):889–97.
17.
Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data.
BMC Med Res Methodol
. 2006;6:31.
18.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
Control Clin Trials
. 1986;7(3):177–88.
19.
Surov A, Wienke A. Sarcopenia predicts overall survival in patients with malignant hematological diseases: a meta-analysis.
Clin Nutr
. 2021;40(3):1155–60.
20.
Papaconstantinou D, Vretakakou K, Paspala A, Misiakos EP, Charalampopoulos A, Nastos C, et al. The impact of preoperative sarcopenia on postoperative complications following esophagectomy for esophageal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Dis Esophagus
. 2020 Mar;33(7):doaa002.
21.
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al.
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Wiley cochrane series)
. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell; 2019.
22.
Yang M, Shen Y, Tan L, Li W. Prognostic value of sarcopenia in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chest
. 2019;156(1):101–11.
23.
Gökyer A, Küçükarda A, Köstek O, Hacıoğlu MB, Sunal BS, Demircan NC, et al. Relation between sarcopenia and dose-limiting toxicity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received regorafenib.
Clin Transl Oncol
. 2019;21(11):1518–23.
24.
Surov A, Pech M, Gessner D, Mikusko M, Fischer T, Alter M, et al. Low skeletal muscle mass is a predictor of treatment related toxicity in oncologic patients. A meta-analysis.
Clin Nutr
. 2021;40(10):5298–310.
25.
Yamamoto K, Nagatsuma Y, Fukuda Y, Hirao M, Nishikawa K, Miyamoto A, et al. Effectiveness of a preoperative exercise and nutritional support program for elderly sarcopenic patients with gastric cancer.
Gastric Cancer
. 2017;20(5):913–8.
26.
Kabarriti R, Bontempo A, Romano M, McGovern KP, Asaro A, Viswanathan S, et al. The impact of dietary regimen compliance on outcomes for HNSCC patients treated with radiation therapy.
Support Care Cancer
. 2018;26(9):3307–13.
Open Access License / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Usage, derivative works and distribution are permitted provided that proper credit is given to the author and the original publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.