SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Prognostic value of prognostic nutritional index in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Although the prognostic utility of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in breast cancer (BC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been widely reported, the available evidence remains inconsistent. Therefore, this meta-analysis systematically evaluated the predictive value of pre-NACT PNI for clinical outcomes in patients with BC. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were queried comprehensively through November 2025 to identify reports evaluating the association of pre-NACT PNI with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and pathological complete response (pCR) in individuals with BC. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS framework. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were retrieved. Effect estimates were synthesized using fixed-or random-effects models as indicated, and robustness was tested by subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and evaluation of publication bias. Results: Nine studies comprising 3,718 patients were included. A high pre-treatment PNI was significantly associated with better OS (HR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.52; p < 0.001) and increased odds of achieving pCR (OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.21-2.98; p = 0.005). A favorable association was also observed for DFS (HR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.31-0.87; p = 0.01); however, this finding should be interpreted with caution because substantial heterogeneity was present and the estimate showed limited stability in leave-one-out sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses indicated that sample size, age, PNI cut-off value, and geographic region might modify the predictive performance of PNI for DFS and pCR. Conclusions: A high pre-NACT PNI was significantly associated with longer OS and a higher likelihood of pCR in patients with BC receiving NACT. A favorable association with DFS was also observed, but this finding should be interpreted cautiously because of substantial heterogeneity and limited robustness. PNI may serve as a simple and practical marker for clinical risk stratification, although further prospective validation is warranted. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251268856.
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.