Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36793606›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Combining prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score as a valuable prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer.

Harin Kim, Dong-Min Shin, Jae-Hoon Lee, Eun-Suk Cho, Hye Sun Lee, Su-Jin Shin, Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Jeonghyun Kang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

10 authors.

Harin KimYonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dong-Min ShinDepartment of Surgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jae-Hoon LeeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun-Suk ChoDepartment of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hye Sun LeeBiostatistics Collaboration Unit, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Su-Jin ShinDepartment of Pathology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun Jung ParkDepartment of Surgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seung Hyuk BaikDepartment of Surgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kang Young LeeDepartment of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jeonghyun KangDepartment of Surgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims: This study compared the prognostic significance of various nutritional and inflammatory indicators such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, prognostic nutritional index, and controlling nutritional status score. In addition, we aimed to establish a more accurate prognostic indicator. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 1112 patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer between January 2004 and April 2014. The controlling nutritional status scores were classified as low (0-1), intermediate (2-4), and high (5-12) scores. The cut-off values for prognostic nutritional index and inflammatory markers were calculated using the X-tile program. P-CONUT, a combination of prognostic nutritional index and the controlling nutritional status score, was suggested. The integrated areas under the curve were then compared. Results: The multivariable analysis showed that prognostic nutritional index was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival, whereas the controlling nutritional status score, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio were not. The patients were divided into three P-CONUT groups as follows: G1, controlling nutritional status (0-4) and high prognostic nutritional index; G2, controlling nutritional status (0-4) and low prognostic nutritional index; and G3, controlling nutritional status (5-12) and low prognostic nutritional index. There were significant survival differences between the P-CONUT groups (5-year overall survival of G1, G2, and G3 were 91.7%, 81.2%, and 64.1%, respectively; Conclusion: Prognostic effect of P-CONUT may be better than inflammatory markers such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio. Thus, it could be used as a reliable nutritional risk stratification tool in patients with colorectal cancer.

Indexed as

colorectal cancercontrolling nutritional status (CONUT) scoreinflammatory markerprognostic factorprognostic nutritional index (PNI)

Identifiers

PMID36793606
PMCPMC9923046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.