SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
Prognostic role of C-reactive protein-albumin-lymphocyte (CALLY) index in gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGastrointestinal (GI) malignancies are a major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. While prognostic tools such as TNM staging and serum biomarkers are widely used, they have limitations. The C-reactive protein-albumin-lymphocyte (CALLY) index, an integrated marker of inflammation, nutrition, and immunity, has emerged as a potential prognostic tool. However, its prognostic value across GI malignancies remains unclear. This systematic review aims to assess the prognostic significance of the CALLY index in GI malignancies, with a primary focus on survival outcomes and a secondary assessment of its association with postoperative complications. METHODOLOGY: Relevant literature was screened through December 2024 to identify studies assessing the prognostic significance of the CALLY index in GI malignancies. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), recurrence rates, and postoperative complications. Eligible studies underwent qualitative synthesis, while meta-analysis was conducted for gastric cancer only. Relative risks (RRs) were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model based on heterogeneity (I² > 50%). Subgroup analyses were performed based on CALLY cutoff values and TNM stage. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test.
resultsA total of 21 studies (8,600 patients) met inclusion criteria. Across all GI malignancies, higher CALLY values, regardless of cutoff variations (range: 0.369-6.96), were consistently associated with improved OS, CSS, DFS, and RFS, while lower values correlated with increased recurrence rates and higher postoperative complication rates. In gastric cancer, a higher CALLY index was associated with improved 5-year OS (RR = 0.81, p < 0.00001) and lower major postoperative complications (RR = 1.48, p = 0.02). Subgroup analysis suggested that a CALLY cutoff < 3 and TNM stage IV inclusion contributed to heterogeneity. No significant publication bias was detected.
conclusionThe CALLY index appears to be a promising independent prognostic biomarker in GI malignancies, with higher values associated with improved survival and fewer postoperative complications. In gastric cancer specifically, meta-analysis confirms its predictive value for 5-year overall survival and major postoperative outcomes. Larger prospective studies are warranted to establish standardized cutoff points and to optimize its clinical utility across diverse patient populations.
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.