4.4 Review

Prognostic value of pretreatment Controlling Nutritional Status score in esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Journal

PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 29, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/pore.2023.1611221

Keywords

meta-analysis; prognosis; esophageal cancer; pretreatment; Controlling Nutritional Status score

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis investigated the association between the pretreatment Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score and prognosis in esophageal cancer patients. The results showed that a higher pretreatment CONUT score was associated with worse overall survival, progression-free survival, and cancer-specific survival.
Background and purpose: The association between the pretreatment Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score and the prognosis of esophageal cancer patients remains unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to further elucidate the prognostic role of the pretreatment CONUT score in esophageal cancer based on current evidence. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CNKI databases were searched up to 27 September 2022. The primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)/cancer-specific survival (CSS), and the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled for analysis. Results: A total of 11 retrospective studies involving 3,783 participants were included. The pooled results demonstrated that a higher pretreatment CONUT score was significantly related to poor OS (HR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.31-2.54, p < 0.001), and subgroup analysis stratified by pathological type showed similar results. In addition, the pretreatment CONUT score was associated with poor PFS (HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10-1.28, p < 0.001) and CSS (HR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.77-4.02, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The pretreatment CONUT score was predictive of worse prognosis in esophageal cancer, and patients with a higher CONUT score showed worse 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available