4.7 Article

Comparison of Preoperative Nutritional Indexes for Outcomes after Primary Esophageal Surgery for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 13, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13114086

Keywords

esophageal cancer; controlling nutritional status score; prognostic nutritional index; geriatric nutritional risk index; survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, poorer nutritional status, as indicated by CONUT, PNI, or GNRI, was associated with worse 5-year overall survival rates. The trend in survival rates decreased as nutritional status worsened, indicating that malnutrition is an independent prognostic factor for postoperative survival.
Background: This study aimed to compare the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score, prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) for predicting postoperative outcomes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing esophagectomy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 1265 consecutive patients who underwent elective esophageal surgery. The patients were classified into no risk, low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk groups based on nutritional scores. Results: The moderate-risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24-1.92, p < 0.001 in CONUT; HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.22-2.12, p = 0.001 in GNRI; HR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.20-2.26, p = 0.002 in PNI) and high-risk groups (HR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.47-2.48, p < 0.001 in CONUT; HR: 2.54, 95% CI: 1.64-3.93, p < 0.001 in GNRI; HR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.77-3.06, p < 0.001 in PNI) exhibited significantly worse 5-year overall survival (OS) compared with the no-risk group. As the nutritional status worsened, the trend in the OS rates decreased (p for trend in all indexes < 0.05). Conclusions: Malnutrition, evaluated by any of three nutritional indexes, was an independent prognostic factor for postoperative survival.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available