ArticleBMC cancer2026
The prognostic value of preoperative Naples prognostic score for overall survival and progression-free survival in colorectal cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to explore the prognostic value of the Naples Prognostic Score (NPS) for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and sarcopenia in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).
methodsThe Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to plot survival curves for PFS and OS, and the Log-rank test was applied to compare survival differences between the two groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate the predictive efficacy of NPS for PFS and OS in CRC patients. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to identify independent risk factors affecting PFS, OS, and sarcopenia. Nomograms were developed based on PFS and OS to forecast the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year prognosis of CRC patients, while the concordance index (C-index) and calibration curves were used to assess the predictive performance of these nomograms.
resultsKaplan-Meier analysis revealed that patients in the high-NPS (scores 3–4) group were significantly associated with poor prognosis (PFS: 48.9% vs. 66.0%, p < 0.001; OS: 48.9% vs. 66.0%, p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression confirmed that the high-NPS group was an independent risk factor for PFS (HR = 1.485, 95% CI: 1.241–1.777, p < 0.001), OS (HR = 1.452, 95% CI: 1.219–1.729, p < 0.001), and sarcopenia (HR = 1.876, 95% CI: 1.403–2.507, p < 0.001). For the nomograms developed based on the independent prognostic factors for PFS and OS, the areas under the ROC curve (AUC) for 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year outcomes were 0.807, 0.776, and 0.766 for PFS, and 0.772, 0.775, and 0.769 for OS, respectively. The C-indices of the nomograms were 0.795 for PFS and 0.815 for OS. Calibration curves demonstrated good agreement between predicted and actual values. Decision curve analysis (DCA) confirmed that the nomograms provided a better clinical net benefit than tumor staging alone.
conclusionsThe preoperative NPS is a promising prognostic scoring method for predicting poor outcomes in CRC patients. The prognostic nomogram based on NPS can serve as an effective tool for the comprehensive prognostic evaluation of CRC patients.
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.