ArticleDiscover oncology2026
The role of the prognostic nutritional index at baseline and follow-up in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
Article in Discover 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPatients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) represent a population with a higher proportion of elderly patients compared to other patient groups. Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPISs) are frequently used in current treatment regimens. Although the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) is widely utilized, its stand alone capacity to accurately predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of PNI in mPC patients treated with ARPIs and to optimize survival predictions by developing integrated multivariable logistic and Cox regression models.
methodsPNI was calculated at baseline and third month after treatment initiation. To assess cross-sectional predictive capability, multivariable logistic regression models were developed for OS and PFS events, and their diagnostic performance was evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Subsequently, time-to-event dynamics and hazard ratios were analyzed using univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.
resultsThe multivariable logit model demonstrated robust predictive performance for survival outcomes. Utilizing the model-derived optimal probability cutoff of 0.343, patients were successfully stratified into distinct prognostic cohorts. The high-probability risk group (≥ 0.343, n = 86) exhibited a significantly worse prognosis, with accelerated curve decline and earlier, more frequent mortality. In contrast, the low-probability group (< 0.343, n = 51) showed a favorable prognosis, maintaining an approximate 30% survival rate up to the 75th month (Log-rank p = 0.009).
conclusionEvaluating nutrition alone is not enough to predict how mPC patients will progress. By tracking PNI changes over time and combining them into multivariable logistic model, we can much better predict overall survival and progression-free survival. In practice, using our model's 0.343 cutoff score allows us to easily catch high-risk patients early on, helping physician step in with personalized nutritional and medical support.
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.