4.3 Article

Comparison of systemic inflammatory and nutritional scores in colorectal cancer patients who underwent potentially curative resection

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 740-748

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-017-1102-5

Keywords

Colorectal cancer; Modified Glasgow prognostic score; Prognostic nutritional index; Systemic inflammatory and nutritional scores; Treatment

Categories

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K19943] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Various systemic inflammatory and nutritional scores have been reported to predict postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the best systemic inflammatory and nutritional scores in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who underwent potentially curative resection. Method We evaluated 468 consecutive CRC patients in this study. Comparisons of systemic inflammatory and nutritional scores, including the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), prognostic index (PI), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), were performed using univariate/multivariate analyses for patient survival. Results The PNI and mGPS, but not the NLR, PLR, and PI, were significantly associated with overall and relapse-free survival. The mGPS, but not the PNI, was strongly correlated with TNM stage (P < 0.001). Cox multivariate analysis showed that both the PNI and mGPS were exclusive independent prognostic factors for both overall and relapse-free survival (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the PNI status predicted patient survival more clearly than the mGPS in combination with TNM stage. Conclusions This study suggests that the PNI and mGPS are useful predictive scores in CRC patients who undergo potentially curative resection, especially the PNI in combination with TNM stage. Routine evaluation of the host status using the scores may be useful in CRC treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available