Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38303637›Full record

ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index Combined with Calf Circumference Can be a Good Predictor of Prognosis in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastric or Colorectal Cancer.

Xin Zheng, Jin-Yu Shi, Zi-Wen Wang, Guo-Tian Ruan, Yi-Zhong Ge, Shi-Qi Lin, Chen-An Liu, Yue Chen, Hai-Lun Xie, Meng-Meng Song and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Intensive care unit outcomes and prognostic factors of colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

16 authors.

Xin ZhengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jin-Yu ShiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zi-Wen WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Guo-Tian RuanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yi-Zhong GeDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shi-Qi LinDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Chen-An LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yue ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Hai-Lun XieDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Meng-Meng SongDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Tong LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ming YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiao-Yue LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Li DengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ming-Hua CongComprehensive Oncology Department, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Han-Ping ShiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery/Department of Clinical Nutrition, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4514-8693

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the effect of combined hematological and physical measurement indicators on the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancer and to screen for the best prognostic indicators.

introductionGastric and colorectal cancer is a widespread health concern worldwide and one of the major contributors to cancer-related death. The hematological and physical measurement indicators have been shown to associate with the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancer, respectively, but it is still unclear whether the combination of the two can reflect the prognosis more effectively.

methodsThirteen hematological indicators and 5 physical measurement indicators were selected in this study, and the most promising ones were screened using LASSO regression. Then, the best prognostic indicators were selected by time-ROC curves. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the effects of hematological and physical measurement indicators on the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancers were evaluated by Cox proportional risk regression analysis. In addition, the relationship between hematological and physical measurement indicators on secondary outcomes, including length of stay, hospitalization costs, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and patients' subjective global assessment scores (PGSGA), was explored.

resultsAfter initial screening, among the hematological indicators, the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) showed the highest mean area under the curve (AUC) values. Among body measures, calf circumference (CC) showed the highest mean AUC value. Further analyses showed that the combination of combined nutritional prognostic index (GNRI) and calf circumference (CC) (GNRI-CC) had the best performance in predicting the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancers. Low GNRI, low CC, and low GNRI-low CC increased the risk of death by 44%, 48%, and 104%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed the same trend. In addition, low GNRI-low CC increased the risk of malnutrition by 17%.

conclusionThis study emphasizes that a combination of blood measures and body measures is essential to accurately assess the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancers. The GNRI-CC is a good prognostic indicator and can also assess the risk of possible malnutrition.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsMalnutritionAgedGeriatric AssessmentHumansNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk Factorsgastric and colorectal cancerhematological indicatorsoverall survivalphysical measurement indicatorssurgery

Identifiers

PMID38303637
PMCPMC10836130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.