4.6 Review

The prognostic significance of the prognostic nutritional index in cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-014-1714-3

关键词

Prognostic nutritional index; Cancer; Prognosis; Meta-analysis

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81101865, 81272637]
  2. Ministry of Education of China [20110171120064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) is a simple and effective parameter, initially created to evaluate preoperative nutritional conditions and surgical risk. It has been recently been found to be associated with short- and long-term outcomes of various malignancies. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the predictive significance of PNI in cancer, as a mean to assist in determining the optimal surgery timing and in improving the survival of cancer patients. Data were retrieved from PubMed and ISI Web of Science to identify eligible studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were extracted and pooled to explore the relationships of PNI with patient survival and clinicopathological features. Fourteen studies with a total of 3,414 participants met the inclusion criteria. Low PNI was associated with poor overall survival (pooled OR 1.80, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.59-2.04) and the presence of post-operative complications (pooled OR 2.45, 95 % CI 1.31-4.58) in cancer patients, but not with cancer-specific survival (CSS) (pooled HR 1.81, 95 % CI 0.94-3.49). PNI was also found to be associated with invasion depth (pooled OR 5.07, 95 % CI 2.34-10.96) and lymph node metastasis (pooled OR 3.70, 95 % CI 2.32-5.92) in gastric cancer, whereas TNM stage was the only clinicopathological feature associated with PNI in colorectal carcinoma (pooled OR 1.81, 95 % CI 1.24-2.64). PNI might be an effective predictive indicator for the prognosis of cancer, especially digestive system carcinomas. Further studies are required to verify the significance of PNI in clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据