Katherine Pierce, Jeremy Gaskins, Robert C G Martin Ii
{"title":"The Weight of Nutrition on Post-Resection Oncologic Morbidity and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nutritional Indices.","authors":"Katherine Pierce, Jeremy Gaskins, Robert C G Martin Ii","doi":"10.1093/nutrit/nuae138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Nutritional status is a critical factor in the selection of patients for solid tumor resection. A variety of indices have been developed to quantify nutritional status, and they have differing degrees of predictive power for various postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the predictive ability of commonly used nutritional indices in relation to postoperative complications (POCs), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and OS.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We performed a systematic review of 14 established nutritional indices from January 2015 to July 2022.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>The primary end point was OS, while the secondary end points were POCs and RFS. A subsequent meta-analysis was performed to further assess the predictive ability of these indices for OS based on general index type, primary tumor site, and the patient's index status.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>In this evaluation, 38 articles reporting data on 23 970 patients were analyzed, focusing on 14 nutritional indices. The indices were categorized into phenotypic, metabolic, immunologic, and combined types. Patients within the cut-off range of any index were predicted to have lower OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.14, 95% CI 1.84-2.49, P < .01). Lower gastrointestinal (GI) and \"other\" sites were less predictive than upper GI primary tumors (HR 1.63, HR 1.82, and HR 2.54, respectively; all with P < .01). Phenotypic indices were less predictive than combined indices (HR 1.73 vs HR 2.47, P < .01). Within the combined category, there was no significant difference in the predictive ability of Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) vs Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) vs Controlling Nutritional Index (CONUT) (HR 2.63 vs HR 2.42 vs HR 2.07, P = .07).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The predictive efficacy of a nutritional index was found to be highly dependent on the index type, the primary tumor site, and the outcome of interest. In the context of upper GI resections, nutritional status appeared to be more of a significant predictor of OS, compared with cases involving lower GI and hepatic malignancies. Indices that integrate phenotypic, metabolic, and immunologic patient factors potentially offer greater clinical utility in forecasting OS.</p>","PeriodicalId":19469,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae138","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context: Nutritional status is a critical factor in the selection of patients for solid tumor resection. A variety of indices have been developed to quantify nutritional status, and they have differing degrees of predictive power for various postoperative outcomes.
Objective: This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the predictive ability of commonly used nutritional indices in relation to postoperative complications (POCs), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and OS.
Data sources: We performed a systematic review of 14 established nutritional indices from January 2015 to July 2022.
Data extraction: The primary end point was OS, while the secondary end points were POCs and RFS. A subsequent meta-analysis was performed to further assess the predictive ability of these indices for OS based on general index type, primary tumor site, and the patient's index status.
Data analysis: In this evaluation, 38 articles reporting data on 23 970 patients were analyzed, focusing on 14 nutritional indices. The indices were categorized into phenotypic, metabolic, immunologic, and combined types. Patients within the cut-off range of any index were predicted to have lower OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.14, 95% CI 1.84-2.49, P < .01). Lower gastrointestinal (GI) and "other" sites were less predictive than upper GI primary tumors (HR 1.63, HR 1.82, and HR 2.54, respectively; all with P < .01). Phenotypic indices were less predictive than combined indices (HR 1.73 vs HR 2.47, P < .01). Within the combined category, there was no significant difference in the predictive ability of Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) vs Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) vs Controlling Nutritional Index (CONUT) (HR 2.63 vs HR 2.42 vs HR 2.07, P = .07).
Conclusion: The predictive efficacy of a nutritional index was found to be highly dependent on the index type, the primary tumor site, and the outcome of interest. In the context of upper GI resections, nutritional status appeared to be more of a significant predictor of OS, compared with cases involving lower GI and hepatic malignancies. Indices that integrate phenotypic, metabolic, and immunologic patient factors potentially offer greater clinical utility in forecasting OS.
背景:营养状况是选择实体瘤切除术患者的关键因素。目前已开发出多种指数来量化营养状况,这些指数对各种术后结果的预测能力各不相同:本研究旨在全面评估常用营养指标对术后并发症(POCs)、无复发生存率(RFS)和OS的预测能力:数据提取:我们对2015年1月至2022年7月期间的14项既有营养指标进行了系统回顾:主要终点为OS,次要终点为POCs和RFS。随后进行了荟萃分析,根据一般指标类型、原发肿瘤部位和患者的指标状况,进一步评估这些指标对OS的预测能力:在这项评估中,分析了38篇报道23 970名患者数据的文章,重点关注14种营养指标。这些指标分为表型、代谢、免疫和综合类型。在任何指数的临界值范围内的患者,预示其OS较低(危险比[HR]2.14,95% CI 1.84-2.49,P 结论:营养指数对OS的预测效果较好:研究发现,营养指标的预测效果高度依赖于指标类型、原发肿瘤部位和相关结果。与涉及下消化道和肝脏恶性肿瘤的病例相比,在上消化道切除术中,营养状况似乎更能显著预测OS。综合患者表型、代谢和免疫因素的指标可能会在预测OS方面提供更大的临床效用。
期刊介绍:
Nutrition Reviews is a highly cited, monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that specializes in the publication of authoritative and critical literature reviews on current and emerging topics in nutrition science, food science, clinical nutrition, and nutrition policy. Readers of Nutrition Reviews include nutrition scientists, biomedical researchers, clinical and dietetic practitioners, and advanced students of nutrition.