Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33686519›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Construction of a comprehensive nutritional index and comparison of its prognostic performance with the PNI and NRI for survival in older patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective study.

Yu-Yu Duan, Jun Deng, Dong-Fang Su, Wen-Qiong Li, Yuan Han, Zhen-Xiu Li, Xue-Zhen Huan, Shi-Heng Zhu, Qiu-Lan Yang, Wen Hu and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The effects of prognostic nutritional index, systemic immune inflammation index and HALP score on fistula formation, recurrence and mortality in laryngeal cancer patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

15 authors.

Yu-Yu Duan *Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jun Deng *Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Dong-Fang Su *Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Wen-Qiong LiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yuan HanSchool of Nursing, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhen-Xiu LiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xue-Zhen HuanSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shi-Heng ZhuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Qiu-Lan YangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Wen HuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Ming-Zhu XinSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lin-Quan TangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Hai-Qiang MaiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yu-Ying FanSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. fanyy@sysucc.org.cn.
Yan HeSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. heyan@sysucc.org.cn.

Funding

Guangdong Medical Research Foundation (CN) A2014252the Nurses Fund of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center 201301the Nursing Youth Talents Foundation of Sun Yat-sen University N2017Y04the Youth Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China 81602371
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the relationship between the Comprehensive Nutritional Index (CNI) and survival in older patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and to compare the prognostic performance of three nutritional indicators (CNI, Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), and Nutritional Risk Index (NRI)) for overall survival (OS).

methodsThis retrospective study involved 309 older NPC patients in Guangzhou (China) from November 2006 to November 2017. The CNI comprised five parameters: the body mass index (BMI), usual body weight percentage (UBW%), hemoglobin (Hb) level, albumin level, and total lymphocyte count (TLC). All single nutritional indicators were evaluated before and immediately after treatment. The principal component analysis (PCA) was used for calculation of the CNI by single nutritional indicators after treatment. The cutoff point for the CNI was evaluated and logistic regression used to explore the risk factors for the CNI. Univariable, multivariable Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier methods were applied for OS and disease-free survival (DFS) analyses. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the prognostic value of the CNI, PNI, and NRI for OS.

resultsAll single nutritional indicators decreased significantly after treatment (P < 0.05). The CNI cutoff point for mortality was 0.027, and the logistic regression indicated more complex treatments or higher cancer stage for NPC was associated with a low CNI (HR = 0.179; 95% CI: 0.037-0.856; 0.545, 0.367-0.811, respectively). In multivariable Cox regression, the CNI remained an independent prognostic factor of OS and DFS (HR = 0.468, 95% CI: 0.263-0.832; 0.527, 0.284-0.977, respectively). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that a low CNI was associated with worse OS and DFS (P = 0.001 and 0.013, respectively). The prognostic predictive performance of the CNI was superior to that of the PNI or NRI.

conclusionsThe CNI can be recommended as an appropriate indicator reflecting the integrated nutritional status of older NPC patients. A low CNI predicted a poor survival outcome and the prognostic performance of CNI was superior to PNI or NRI.

Indexed as

Nasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsNutrition AssessmentAgedHumansNutritional StatusPrognosisRetrospective StudiesComprehensive nutritional indexNasopharyngeal carcinomaOlder patientsPrognosisSurvival

Identifiers

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.