Impact of geriatric nutritional risk index on outcomes after gastrectomy in elderly patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective multicenter study in Japan.
Elderly patient
Gastric cancer
Geriatric nutritional risk index
Prognosis
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 May 2022
12 May 2022
Historique:
received:
15
03
2022
accepted:
06
05
2022
entrez:
13
5
2022
pubmed:
14
5
2022
medline:
18
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several studies investigated the utility of inflammation and nutritional markers in predicting the prognosis in patients with gastric cancer; however, the markers with the best predictive ability remain unclear. This retrospective study aimed to determine inflammation and nutritional markers that predicted prognosis in elderly patients over 75 years of age undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Between January 2005 and December 2015, 497 consecutive elderly gastric cancer patients aged over 75 years underwent curative gastrectomy in 12 institutions. The geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), prognostic nutritional index, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, platelet/lymphocyte ratio, and C-reactive protein/albumin ratio were examined as prognostic markers for overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) using area under the curve (AUC) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The GNRI had the highest AUC and predictive value for both OS (0.637, p < 0.001) and DSS (AUC 0.645, p < 0.001). The study cohort was categorized into the high and low GNRI groups based on the optimal GNRI cut-off values for OS (97.0) and DSS (95.8) determined with the ROC analysis. For both OS and DSS, there was a significant correlation between the GNRI and several clinicopathological factors including age, body mass index, albumin, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, depth of tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis, lymphatic invasion, pathological stage, operation duration, bleeding, procedure, approach, death due to primary disease, and death due to other disease. The GNRI remained a crucial independent prognostic factor for both OS (Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.905, p < 0.001) and DSS in multivariate analysis (HR = 1.780, p = 0.043). Among a panel of inflammation and nutritional markers, the GNRI exhibited the best performance as a prognostic factor after curative gastrectomy in elderly patients with gastric cancer, indicating its utility as a simple and promising index for predicting OS and DSS in these patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several studies investigated the utility of inflammation and nutritional markers in predicting the prognosis in patients with gastric cancer; however, the markers with the best predictive ability remain unclear. This retrospective study aimed to determine inflammation and nutritional markers that predicted prognosis in elderly patients over 75 years of age undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
METHODS
METHODS
Between January 2005 and December 2015, 497 consecutive elderly gastric cancer patients aged over 75 years underwent curative gastrectomy in 12 institutions. The geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), prognostic nutritional index, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, platelet/lymphocyte ratio, and C-reactive protein/albumin ratio were examined as prognostic markers for overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) using area under the curve (AUC) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The GNRI had the highest AUC and predictive value for both OS (0.637, p < 0.001) and DSS (AUC 0.645, p < 0.001). The study cohort was categorized into the high and low GNRI groups based on the optimal GNRI cut-off values for OS (97.0) and DSS (95.8) determined with the ROC analysis. For both OS and DSS, there was a significant correlation between the GNRI and several clinicopathological factors including age, body mass index, albumin, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, depth of tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis, lymphatic invasion, pathological stage, operation duration, bleeding, procedure, approach, death due to primary disease, and death due to other disease. The GNRI remained a crucial independent prognostic factor for both OS (Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.905, p < 0.001) and DSS in multivariate analysis (HR = 1.780, p = 0.043).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Among a panel of inflammation and nutritional markers, the GNRI exhibited the best performance as a prognostic factor after curative gastrectomy in elderly patients with gastric cancer, indicating its utility as a simple and promising index for predicting OS and DSS in these patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35549906
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09638-6
pii: 10.1186/s12885-022-09638-6
pmc: PMC9103416
doi:
Substances chimiques
C-Reactive Protein
9007-41-4
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
540Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Cancer. 2019 Jul 8;19(1):672
pubmed: 31286873
Ann Surg. 2020 Apr;271(4):693-700
pubmed: 30308614
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 8;14(3):e0213076
pubmed: 30849099
World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Mar 31;14:90
pubmed: 27030355
Nutr Cancer. 2001;39(2):210-3
pubmed: 11759282
Ups J Med Sci. 2011 May;116(2):124-8
pubmed: 21091281
Nutr Cancer. 2021;73(10):1864-1871
pubmed: 32940549
World J Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan 30;19(1):34
pubmed: 33516219
Updates Surg. 2020 Jun;72(2):483-491
pubmed: 32193765
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022 Apr;34(4):811-817
pubmed: 35389186
J Surg Oncol. 2016 Jun;113(7):732-7
pubmed: 27004839
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Oct 21;20(39):14280-91
pubmed: 25339815
Gastric Cancer. 2013 Jan;16(1):1-27
pubmed: 22729699
J Asthma. 2016 Jun;53(5):478-84
pubmed: 26526038
J Surg Oncol. 2018 Apr;117(5):1020-1028
pubmed: 29409111
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83
pubmed: 16210706
Gastric Cancer. 2018 Mar;21(2):204-212
pubmed: 28656485
Oncotarget. 2020 Jun 16;11(24):2345-2356
pubmed: 32595832
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;46(3):359-64
pubmed: 18303990
Gastric Cancer. 2021 Jan;24(1):1-21
pubmed: 32060757
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 26;13(7):e0200936
pubmed: 30048474
Cancer Treat Rev. 2020 Apr;85:101980
pubmed: 32065879
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2021 Jul;45(5):1042-1051
pubmed: 32740962
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017 Jul;17(7):1045-1047
pubmed: 28670849
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 2;17(2):e0262630
pubmed: 35108317
Yonago Acta Med. 2019 Dec 13;63(1):8-19
pubmed: 32158328
Cancer Manag Res. 2022 Jan 12;14:177-187
pubmed: 35046725
Med Oncol. 2018 Jun 19;35(7):111
pubmed: 29923032
J Surg Oncol. 2003 Nov;84(3):151-9
pubmed: 14598359
Nutr Cancer. 2021;73(3):391-403
pubmed: 32321298
Cancer J. 2005 Nov-Dec;11(6):449-60
pubmed: 16393479
Cancer J. 2005 Nov-Dec;11(6):461-73
pubmed: 16393480
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Aug;20(8):517-35
pubmed: 27343117
Nutr Cancer. 2021;73(9):1657-1667
pubmed: 32924631
World J Surg. 2018 Jun;42(6):1819-1825
pubmed: 29270656
Am J Cardiol. 2011 Oct 15;108(8):1166-70
pubmed: 21798500
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Sep;28(8 Suppl):21-4
pubmed: 23993346
Oncology. 2006;70(2):115-25
pubmed: 16645324
Science. 2014 Oct 31;346(6209):587-91
pubmed: 25359967
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Nov 22;13(22):
pubmed: 34831005
Pathologe. 2010 Sep;31(5):331-2
pubmed: 20703480
Clin Transl Oncol. 2019 May;21(5):687-691
pubmed: 30284234
Esophagus. 2019 Apr;16(2):147-154
pubmed: 30311102
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Aug;65(8):1235-42
pubmed: 23408767
Onco Targets Ther. 2020 Sep 07;13:8845-8859
pubmed: 32982279
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1994 Nov;48 Suppl 3:S131-40
pubmed: 7843150
Lancet. 2009 Mar 28;373(9669):1083-96
pubmed: 19299006
Biomed Pharmacother. 2001 Nov;55(9-10):543-7
pubmed: 11769963
BMC Med. 2020 Nov 20;18(1):360
pubmed: 33213430