Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30838449›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) as a prognostic immunonutritional biomarker for gastric cancer after curative gastrectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Noriyuki Hirahara, Yoshitsugu Tajima, Yusuke Fujii, Shunsuke Kaji, Yasunari Kawabata, Ryoji Hyakudomi, Tetsu Yamamoto, Takahito Taniura

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Noriyuki HiraharaDepartment of Digestive and General Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan. norinorihirahara@yahoo.co.jp.
Yoshitsugu TajimaDepartment of Digestive and General Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Yusuke FujiiDepartment of Digestive and General Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Shunsuke KajiDepartment of Digestive and General Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Yasunari KawabataDepartment of Digestive and General Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Ryoji HyakudomiDepartment of Digestive and General Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Tetsu YamamotoDepartment of Digestive and General Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Takahito TaniuraDepartment of Digestive and General Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn clinical practice, it is not unusual to treat oncologic patients whose tumor markers are within normal range, even with advanced cancer. The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score could provide a useful nutritional and immunological prognostic biomarker for cancer patients. In this study, we assessed the prognostic value of the CONUT score for patients with gastric cancer, including a subgroup analysis with stratification based on serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 368 consecutive patients who underwent curative laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy. The prognostic value of the CONUT score was compared between patients with a low (≤ 2) and high (≥ 3) score, with propensity score matching (PSM) used to control for biasing covariates (Depth of tumor, Lymph node metastasis, pathological TNM (pTNM) stage).

resultsOverall survival (OS) among all patients was independently predicted by the tumor stage (hazard ratio (HR): 2.231, p = 0.001), the CONUT score (HR: 2.254, p = 0.001), and serum CEA level (HR: 1.821, p = 0.025). Among patients with a normal preoperative serum CEA level, tumor stage (HR: 2.350, p = 0.007), and the CONUT score (HR: 1.990, p = 0.028) were independent prognostic factors of OS. In the high serum CEA level group, tumor size (HR: 2.930, p = 0.015) and the CONUT score (HR: 3.707, p = 0.004) were independent prognostic factors of OS.

conclusionsIt is advantageous to use both CEA level and the CONUT score to assess the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer, which reflect both tumor-related factors and host-related factors, respectively.

Indexed as

GastrectomyBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoembryonic AntigenGPI-Linked ProteinsHumansNutritional StatusPrognosisPropensity ScoreProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoembryonic AntigenCEACAM5 protein, humanGPI-Linked ProteinsCEACONUTGastric cancerOverall survival

Identifiers

PMID30838449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.