ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2024
Comparison of the prognostic value of eight nutrition-related tools in older patients with cancer: A prospective study.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic value of the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score in cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Three Nutritional Screening Tools in Older Patients with Urgent Hospitalization for Various Respiratory Diseases.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Beyond individual markers: Prognostic value of the combined CEA/PNI score in metastatic colorectal cancer as a predictor of survival.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the ability of eight nutrition-related tools to predict 1-year mortality in older patients with cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsWe studied older patients with cancer from the ELCAPA cohort and who had been referred for a geriatric assessment at one of 14 participating geriatric oncology clinics in the greater Paris area of France between 2007 and 2018. MEASUREMENTS: The studied nutrition-related tools/markers were the body mass index (BMI), weight loss (WL) in the previous 6 months, the Mini Nutritional Assessment, the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), the Prognostic Nutritional Index, the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), the modified GPS, and the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio.
resultsA total of 1361 patients (median age: 81; males: 51%; metastatic cancer: 49%) were included in the analysis. Most of the tools showed a progressively increase in the mortality risk as the nutrition-related risk category worsened (overall p-values <0.02 for all) after adjustment for age, outpatient status, functional status, severe comorbidities, cognition, mood, cancer treatment strategy, tumour site, and tumour metastasis. All the models were discriminant, with a C-index ranging from 0.748 (for the BMI) to 0.762 (for the GPS). The concordance probability estimate ranged from 0.764 (WL) to 0.773 (GNRI and GPS)).
conclusionAfter adjustment for relevant prognostic factors, all eight nutrition-related tools/markers were independently associated with 1-year mortality in older patients with cancer. Depending on the time or context of the GA, physicians do not always have the time or means to perform and assess all the tools/markers compared here. However, even when some information is missing, each nutritional tool/marker has prognostic value and can be used in the evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.