Table 2.

Selected body measures and their association with cancer outcomes

Body measureMethod of calculation/measureExamples for prognostic evidence
Weight at diagnosisWeight scale (kg)Breast cancer-worse OS (HR = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17–1.46) for heavier vs. lighter (43)
BMI at diagnosisWeight scale/meter weight (kg)/height (m2)Contradicting evidence:
- Better survival for higher BMI in men—SWOG trials (HR = 0.82; P = 0.003; ref. 9)
- Worse survival in early breast cancer with higher BMI (HR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09–2.01; ref. 44)
Weight changes after diagnosisWeight scale (kg)Contradicting evidence in early breast cancer
- Meta-analysis weight gain ≥10.0% associated with all-cause mortality (HR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09 –1.39; ref. 45)
Breast cancer large cohort—weight loss ≥10% was associated with worse survival, all-cause mortality 2.63 (2.12–3.26; ref. 7)
Colorectal cancer–specific mortality (HR = 3.20; 95% CI, 2.33–4.39; P < 0.0001; ref. 8)
Sarcopenia (low muscle mass)DEXA/CT scan/MRIRecent meta-analysis in different types and stages (HR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.32–1.56; P < 0.001; ref. 27)
HEAL—early breast cancer survivors—higher overall mortality in sarcopenic patients (HR = 2.86; 95 % CI, 1.67–4.89; ref. 46)
Muscle radiodensity [mean (HU)]CT scan/MRISeveral studies low radiodensity associated with short survival (41, 42)
SATCT scan/MRIAdvanced prostate cancer- in multivariate analysis, SAT index was statistically significant predictors of OS (P = 0.036; ref. 47)
VATCT scan/MRIMainly reported VAT/SAT ratio-increasing ratio result in better OS (48)
Higher VAT associated with worse survival (49, 50)
MAMCMeasuring tape (cm)Better OS with normal MAMC (HR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09–0.5; ref. 51)
  • Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CT, computerized tomography; DEXA, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; HU, Hounsfield unit; MAMC, mid-arm muscle circumference; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging; SAT, subcutaneous adipose tissue; SWOG, Southwest Oncology Group; VAT, visceral adipose tissue.