This review highlights the relationship between sarcopenia and survival outcomes in colorectal cancer, suggesting clinical implications for treatment planning.
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common and deadly malignancies worldwide. Sarcopenia, defined as a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass and function, has recently been recognized as an important prognostic factor in CRC, influencing both postoperative complications and long-term survival. Methods: We conducted a descriptive review of 18 clinical studies investigating the association between sarcopenia and CRC across stages I–IV. Sarcopenia was primarily assessed using computed tomography-derived skeletal muscle index (SMI) or psoas index (PI) at the lumbar vertebrae (L3/L4), with some studies additionally incorporating muscle strength and performance. Results: The prevalence of sarcopenia among CRC patients ranged from 12% to 60%. Most studies reported higher risks of postoperative complications in sarcopenic patients. For instance, Peng et al demonstrated an increased risk of complications in stage IV CRC patients with sarcopenia (OR: 3.12, 95% CI: 1.14– 8.49). Regarding survival, sarcopenia was consistently associated with worse overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Brown et al (2018) showed that deterioration in muscle mass and radiodensity significantly predicted poorer OS in 1,924 stage I–III CRC patients (HR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.59– 2.92). However, several studies reported no significant associations. Conclusion: Sarcopenia is prevalent in CRC patients and strongly correlates with both short-term surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis. However, current evidence is mainly derived from heterogeneous observational studies, and further prospective studies are needed before sarcopenia assessment can be translated into routine clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: