151751-Najiba-Chargi

388 CHAPTER 19 Table 1. (Continued) Total N=150 Frail N=60 Non-Frail N=90 χ 2 p-value Age (years) (M, SD) 70.3 7.26 71.5 8.7 69.5 6.0 NA 0.14 Unknown primary 10 7 3 5 7 8 Type of tumor (n, %) Primary 143 95 59 98 84 93 2.12 0.35 Recurrent 1 1 0 0 1 1 Second primary 6 4 1 2 5 6 Histology (n, %) Squamous 119 79 50 82 69 77 1.34 0.51 Adenocarcinoma 18 12 5 9 13 14 Other 13 9 5 9 8 9 TNM Stage (n, %) I 23 15 8 13 15 17 8.01 0.046 ** II 30 20 6 10 24 27 III 33 22 14 23 19 21 IV 64 43 32 54 32 35 Type of imaging (n, %) CT 92 61 39 65 53 59 0.57 0.45 MRI 58 39 21 35 37 41 Lowmuscle function (n, %) No 117 78 43 72 74 82 2.34 0.13 Yes 33 22 17 28 16 18 Low SMI (n, %) No 58 39 14 23 44 49 9.91 0.002* Yes 92 61 46 77 46 51 Sarcopenia (n, %) No 129 86 47 78 82 91 4.88 0.027** Yes 21 14 13 22 8 9 Correlation analysis of sarcopenia and frailty score SMI showed a significant though weak correlation with the G8 frailty score (r=0.252, p<0.01). handgrip strength showed a significant but weak correlation with the G8 frailty score (r=0.284, p<0.01). A stronger and significant correlation was identified between SMI and the handgrip strength (r=0.512, p<0.01). Scatterplots, with SMI, hand grip strength, and the G8 frailty score are presented in Figure 2.