ArticleJournal of inflammation research2025
Modified Naples Prognostic Score for Postoperative Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
Article in Journal of inflammation research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The predictive value of modified-Naples prognostic score for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer undergoing surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Development of a Prognostic Nomogram Model and Establishment of a Risk Stratification System Based on the Naples Prognostic Score for Patients with Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Who Have Undergone Radical Surgery.Journal of inflammation research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Naples Prognostic Score (NPS) is a composite index that combines serum albumin (ALB), total cholesterol (TC), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR). It has proven prognostic value across various cancers. However, its use in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) has not been sufficiently recognized for disease-specific characteristics. This study aimed to create and validate a modified NPS (mNPS) specifically for OSCC, comparing its prognostic effectiveness to that of the conventional NPS and other established indices. Methods: A total of 479 patients with histologically confirmed OSCC who underwent curative-intent surgery between 2012 and 2019 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to development (n=335) and validation (n=144) cohorts. Cohort-specific optimal cut-off values for ALB, TC, NLR, and LMR were determined using X-Tile software to construct the mNPS. Prognostic performance of mNPS was compared with conventional NPS, SII, SIRI, and CONUT using ROC analysis, C-index, and Cox regression. A nomogram incorporating mNPS and other independent risk factors was constructed and validated. Results: Multivariate Cox regression confirmed mNPS as an independent predictor of OS (Group 1: HR 2.18; Group 2: HR 3.10; P<0.01). The mNPS-based nomogram showed superior prognostic accuracy for 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS with AUCs of 0.83, 0.80, and 0.83 in the development cohort, and 0.80, 0.79, and 0.82 in the validation cohort. Corresponding C-index values were 0.73 (OS), 0.72 (DFS), and 0.73 (DSS) in the development cohort, and 0.74, 0.71, and 0.76 in the validation cohort, all outperforming the NPS-based model. Calibration and decision curve analyses confirmed the model's robustness and clinical utility. Conclusion: Through OSCC-specific threshold recalibration, mNPS demonstrated improved prognostic discrimination compared with conventional indices. Incorporating mNPS into a nomogram enhances individualized risk stratification and provides a practical tool for guiding clinical decision-making in OSCC.
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.