4.5 Article

A Preoperative Nutritional Index for Predicting Cancer-Specific and Overall Survival in Chinese Patients With Laryngeal Cancer

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 95, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002962

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Guangdong Provincial Department of Science and Technology [2010B031600061]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pinato prognostic nutritional index (PNI) adequately predicts long-term outcomes of various malignancies. However, its value in predicting outcomes in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) is unknown. All patients newly diagnosed with LSCC presenting to the Department of Head and Neck Oncology at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between January 1, 1990 and July 31, 2010 were eligible. The PNI was calculated as serum albumin (g/L) + 5 x total lymphocyte count/L. The Cutoff Finder software program was used to classify the patients into 3 groups for which the PNI score was at least 70% sensitive, at least 70% specific, or equivocal. Cancer-specific survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and predictors were assessed with Cox regression analysis. Median time between surgery and PNI administration for the 975 eligible patients was 83 months. Index score groups were significantly associated with age, T stage, TNM stage, and type of surgery. Five-year CSS and OS were 57.3% and 56.6% in patients with PNI scores below 48.65 (low-probability of survival), 72.8% and 71.3% with scores between 48.65 and 56.93 (moderate-probability of survival), and 77.6% and 75.3% with scores above 56.93 (high-probability of survival); 10-year CSS and OS were 44.2% and 42.7%, 61.6% and 55.6%, 68.3% and 63.5%, respectively. The PNI score groups significantly predicted CSS and OS (P < 0.001). The PNI is an inexpensive and readily available score that predicted survival in patients with LSCC after curative laryngectomy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available