Literature DB >> 27809860

Preoperative pre-albumin predicts prognosis of patients after gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction.

Wen-Xiu Han1, Zhang-Ming Chen1, Zhi-Jian Wei1, A-Man Xu2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG) was initially proposed in 1999 by Siewert. During recent decades, the incidence and prevalence of AEG were arising globally whereas the incidence of gastric cancer is gradually declining. Complete blood counting and liver function tests, as the routine examination of immune and nutritional status, were reported to be the predictors of overall survival (OS) in some tumors. However, little is known about the prognostic significance of these indexes in AEG patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the prediction of preoperative pre-albumin, hemoglobin, and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) for survival outcomes in AEG patients.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 101 AEG patients followed by radical surgery was recruited between January and July 2010. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained and used to evaluate the predictive value through survival analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis determined 200 mg/L, 120 g/L, 5 cm, and 51 as the cutoff values of pre-albumin, hemoglobin, tumor size, and PNI, respectively.
RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed that AEG patients with hemoglobin ≥120 g/L, albumin ≥40 g/L, pre-albumin ≥200 g/L, PNI ≥51, and tumor size <5 cm had longer OS (P < 0.05). Additionally, pre-albumin, tumor size, and TNM stage were demonstrated to be independent prognostic indicators by multivariate analysis with Cox regression, and the performance of pre-albumin for predicting OS in AEG patients was further identified by ROC curves (P = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative pre-albumin was an independent prognostic factor, and a high level of pre-albumin predicted longer OS in AEG patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AEG; Gastric cancer; OS; PNI; Pre-albumin

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27809860      PMCID: PMC5094092          DOI: 10.1186/s12957-016-1035-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1477-7819            Impact factor:   2.754


Background

Gastric cancer (GC) was one of the most prevalent malignant diseases worldwide and ranked second for cancer deaths in 2013, especially in developing countries [1]. Adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (AEG), as one of special malignant tumors due to their borderline location between the esophagus and stomach, was initially proposed in 1999 by Siewert [2]. During recent decades, the incidence and prevalence of AEG were arising globally whereas the incidence of gastric cancer is gradually declining [3-5]. Siewert et al. proposed that tumors at the location within 5 cm from the Z-line were defined as AEG independently and classified as three types, which have been widely adopted worldwide [6]. Recent epidemiological and clinical studies suggested that the prevalence, etiology, pathology, treatments, and outcomes of AEG were distinguishing obviously from tumors at other locations, even in the three types of AEG [7]. The competition between tumor aggression and body defense is crucial for prognosis of cancer-related overall survivals (OS). Among them, immune and nutritional status of patients with cancer had gradually become the focus in the field of cancer research nowadays [8], especially in patients with postoperative chemotherapy. Complete blood counting and liver function tests, as the routine examinations before surgery, were reported to be the predictors of OS in some tumors, such colorectal cancer, breast cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and GC [8-11]. Hemoglobin and albumin were the most common parameters to reflect the nutritional status, which of the lower level was demonstrated to be associated with poorer prognosis for patients with GC. Additionally, neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio (NLR) and platelets to lymphocytes ratio (PLR), as predictors of patients with GC, have been studied worldwide. To our best knowledge, no studies had republished to access the prediction of these indexes for survival outcome in patients with AEG who underwent gastrectomy and chemotherapy. Here, the aim of this study was to research the clinical values of these parameters for prediction of OS in AEG patients.

Methods

Patients

The patients, who underwent radical open total or proximal gastrectomy for primary gastric cancer and were diagnosed as adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction based on postoperative pathology in the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University (FAHAMU) from January to July 2010, were enrolled in this study retrospectively. All patients received the preoperative examinations of hemoglobin, albumin, pre-albumin, neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet. Additionally, complete clinicopathological characteristics including age, gender, tumor site, differentiation grade, tumor size, infiltration depth, lymph node metastasis, and distant metastasis were also collected. Patients who died within 30 days after surgery and received preoperative chemoradiotherapy were excluded from this study. Patients were also excluded if they underwent splenectomy or hepatectomy and had evidence of infections or were diagnosed with autoimmune diseases and multiple primary cancers. Finally, a total of 101 patients, who were followed up through telephones and outpatient visit up to September 2015, were enrolled in this study.

Clinical and laboratory data collection

All the details were collected from FAHAMU cancer database. The blood samples were gathered within 7 days before surgery to examine the hemoglobin, neutrophil, lymphocyte, platelet, albumin, globulin, and pre-albumin. According to the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC 2010) on tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging [12], the postoperative pathological stages were determined for patients with gastric cancer. Additionally, all AEG patients were classified into three types based on the AEG criteria recommended by Siewert (1998).

Definition of prognostic nutritional index and cutoff values

The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) was calculated using the following formula: 10 × serum albumin (g/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (per mm3) [13]. The PNI cutoff points were selected by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for the prediction of survival outcomes based on data from the whole cohort. Finally, using the Youden index [maximum (sensitivity + specificity − 1)] [14], we determined that the recommended cutoff value was 51 [sensitivity, 69.2; specificity, 59.2; area under the curve (AUC), 0.615; P = 0.046]. And according to the recommended cutoff value, patients were divided into groups as follows: low-PNI group (PNI <51) and high-PNI group (PNI ≥51). The recommended cutoff values for preoperative hemoglobin and pre-albumin were decided using ROC curve analysis based on the most prominent points on the ROC curves and defined as 120 g/L [sensitivity, 51.9; specificity, 71.4; area under the curve (AUC), 0.621; P = 0.037] and 200 mg/L [sensitivity, 44.0; specificity, 88.0; area under the curve (AUC), 0.659; P = 0.006].

Statistical analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 21.0 (SPSS, IBM, Chicago, IL, USA), was used for all statistical analysis, and differences at P value <0.05 were considered to be significant in all statistical analysis. The ROC curves were constructed to determine the cutoff values of hemoglobin, pre-albumin, PNI, and tumor size. Additionally, the relationships between associated factors and overall survival were analyzed through the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test, respectively. Moreover, multivariate analysis was performed based on the univariate analysis with P < 0.05 to evaluate the most valuable predictor of survival outcomes.

Results

Baseline of patients’ characteristics

The clinicopathological characteristics of the 101 AEG patients and their relationships with overall survival were summarized in Table 1. Overall, 80 (79.2 %) patients were males and 21 (20.8 %) were females. The mean age of patients was 65 years old (range, 43–82). The median follow-up period was 51 months (range, 1.5–66), and there were 52 (51.5%) cases confirmed as dead at the last follow-up.
Table 1

Clinical and laboratory characteristics of 101 AEG patients associated with OS

Patient-related factorsNo. of patients (%)OS (months) [mean (95 % CI)] P values
Gender
 Male80 (79.2)42.3 (36.9–47.7)0.343
 Female21 (20.8)48.5 (39.4–57.7)
Age (years)
 <6023 (22.8)44.5 (34.9–54.1)0.976
 ≥6078 (77.2)43.3 (38.9–48.3)
BMI (kg/m2)
 <18.59 (8.9)31.7 (18.8–14.6)0.180
 ≥18.5 and <2571 (70.3)45.5 (40.0–51.1)
 ≥2521 (20.8)41.4 (30.7–52.0)
Hemoglobin (g/L)
 <12041 (40.6)38.4 (31.4–45.4)0.029*
 ≥12060 (59.4)44.6 (41.0–53.4)
Albumin (g/L)
 <4027 (26.7)35.7 (26.4–44.9)0.036*
 ≥4074 (73.3)46.0 (38.9–48.3)
Pre-albumin (g/L)
 <20029 (28.7)31.5 (23.6–39.3)<0.001*
 ≥20072 (71.3)48.0 (43.0–53.8)
PNI
 <5154 (53.5)37.6 (31.0–44.2)0.008*
 ≥5147 (46.5)50.5 (44.3–56.7)
Tumor size (cm)0.004*
 <564 (63.4)48.3 (42.5–54.1)
 ≥537 (36.6)35.4 (28.0–42.8)
Differentiation grade
 Poor69 (68.3)39.4 (33.5–45.3)0.031*
 Well32 (31.7)52.0 (45.0–58.0)
Tumor location
 Siewert II6 (5.9)40.3 (19.6–61.1)0.923
 Siewert III95 (5.1)43.8 (38.9–48.6)
T stage
 T1, T218 (17.8)61.9 (56.2–67.6)0.001*
 T3, T483 (82.2)39.6 (34.4–44.9)
N stage
 N041 (40.6)51.1 (43.9–58.4)0.001*
 N143 (42.6)41.3 (34.7–47.9)
 N216 (15.8)32.5 (20.8–44.2)
 N31 (1.0)8.0 (8.0–8.0)
TNM stage
 I, II44 (43.6)52.5 (45.7–59.2)<0.001*
 III, IV57 (56.4)36.7 (30.8–42.7)
Surgical type
 Total gastrectomy6 (5.9)57.0 (42.7–71.3)0.131
 Proximal gastrectomy95 (94.1)42.7 (37.8–47.6)

BMI body mass index, PNI prognostic nutritional index

*P < 0.05

Clinical and laboratory characteristics of 101 AEG patients associated with OS BMI body mass index, PNI prognostic nutritional index *P < 0.05

Univariate analysis of prognostic factors

Among all 101 AEG patients, there are no significant differences observed in gender, age, BMI, and tumor location associated with OS. However, according to the univariate analysis, AEG patients with hemoglobin ≥120 g/L, albumin ≥40 g/L, pre-albumin ≥200 g/L, tumor size <5 cm, PNI ≥51, and well differentiation grade had longer OS (P < 0.05), and this was consistent with an earlier T stage, N stage, or TNM stage (P < 0.01). Moreover, larger tumor size was a significant risk factor for survival outcomes (P < 0.01) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Kaplan-Meier survival curves after surgery for AEG patients in high hemoglobin and low hemoglobin (a), high pre-albumin and low pre-albumin (b), high prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and low PNI (c), large tumor size and small tumor size (d), high albumin and low albumin (e), and well differentiation grade and poor differentiation grade (f)

Kaplan-Meier survival curves after surgery for AEG patients in high hemoglobin and low hemoglobin (a), high pre-albumin and low pre-albumin (b), high prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and low PNI (c), large tumor size and small tumor size (d), high albumin and low albumin (e), and well differentiation grade and poor differentiation grade (f)

Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors

Multivariate analysis with Cox regression was performed to assess for various prognostic factors. Consistent with univariate analysis, pre-albumin [hazard ratio (HR) 0.512; 95 % CI 0.282–0.927; P = 0.027] and TNM stage (HR 2.532; 95 % CI 1.220–5.523; P = 0.013) were independent prognostic indicators and a high level of pre-albumin demonstrated a positive survival. However, the level of hemoglobin, tumor size, and PNI were not a significant independent factor in multivariate analysis (P > 0.05) (Table 2).
Table 2

Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for OS in AEG patients

Patient-related factorsHazard ratio95 % CI P value
Albumin (g/L)
 <4010.874
 ≥400.9450.469–1.903
Hemoglobin (g/L)
 <12011.000
 ≥1201.0000.527–1.899
PNI
 <5110.426
 ≥510.7510.372–1.518
Pre-albumin (g/L)
 <20010.021*
 ≥2000.4940.271–0.901
Tumor size (cm)
 <510.869
 ≥51.0530.567–1.957
TNM stage
 I, II10.013*
 III, IV2.5301.220–5.248
Differentiation grade
 Poor10.248
 Well1.3350.307–1.357

PNI prognostic nutritional index

*P < 0.05

Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for OS in AEG patients PNI prognostic nutritional index *P < 0.05

Definition of prognostic factors

Considering the interactions of patient-related factors for survival outcomes, ROC curves were constructed to estimate their discrimination ability (Fig. 2). The hemoglobin AUC was 0.617 (95 % CI 0.507–0.727); the pre-albumin AUC was 0.660 (95 % CI 0.553–0.767); and the PNI AUC was 0.623 (95 % CI 0.513–0.733). Therefore, the performance abilities of pre-albumin were similar to others for predicting overall survivals of AEG patients.
Fig. 2

The predictive ability of the three parameters for 5-year OS was compared by ROC curves (PNI represents prognostic nutritional index)

The predictive ability of the three parameters for 5-year OS was compared by ROC curves (PNI represents prognostic nutritional index)

Relationship between the pre-albumin and clinicopathologic characteristics

The serum pre-albumin, as an independent prognostic indicator, was associated with survival outcomes in AEG patients. Thus, subgroup analyses were further established to identify the relationships between the pre-albumin and other clinicopathologic characteristics and evaluate the prognostic value of pre-albumin more comprehensively (Table 3). Among them, a total of 29 AEG patients were detected with a lower level of pre-albumin <200 mg/L, whereas others were detected with a higher level of pre-albumin ≥200 mg/L. The pre-albumin was not significantly correlated with gender, age, BMI, albumin, and tumor location. However, the associations between pre-albumin and hemoglobin (P = 0.014), pre-albumin and PNI (P = 0.011), and pre-albumin and differentiation grade (P = 0.011) were significant. More importantly, the level of serum pre-albumin was significantly associated with TNM stage (P < 0.001).
Table 3

Relationship between the pre-albumin and clinicopathologic characteristics

Patient-related factorsPre-albumin <200 mg/LPre-albumin ≥200 mg/L P value
(n = 29)(n = 72)
Gender0.260
 Male2258
 Female714
Age (years)0.565
 <60419
 ≥602553
BMI (kg/m2)0.084
 <18.572
 18.5 ≤ < 231338
 23≤932
Hemoglobin (g/L)0.014*
 <1201724
 ≥1201248
Albumin (g/L)0.052
 <401413
 ≥401559
PNI0.011*
 <512034
 ≥51938
Differentiation grade0.044*
 Poor2049
 Well923
Tumor location0.632
 Siewert II15
 Siewert III2867
Tumor size (cm)0.004*
 <51450
 ≥51522
TNM stage<0.001*
 I, II1034
 III, IV1938

BMI body mass index, PNI prognostic nutritional index

*P < 0.05

Relationship between the pre-albumin and clinicopathologic characteristics BMI body mass index, PNI prognostic nutritional index *P < 0.05

Discussion

In the few decades, there has been an alarming rise in the incidence of tumors originating at the esophagogastric junction. In some literature, some authors held the opinion that all tumors arising at or close to the esophagogastric junction should be traditionally classified into esophageal carcinomas or gastric cancers, while Siewert et al. considered them as an entity called AEG and classified them into three types: I–III [2, 15–17]. In Eastern countries, types I and II of AEG were more prevalent than type III, which is in sharp contrast with the prevalence of the three types in Western countries [18]. The AEG-special etiological factors for dramatic increase of prevalence were remaining not determined. Continuous gastroesophageal reflux was reported to increase the risk of epithelium to progress to Barrett’s esophagus or adenocarcinoma [19]. Complete removal of primary tumor (R0 resection) with lymphadenectomy (D2), as routine radical surgery, remains the curative treatment that provided best survival outcomes. Nowadays, the differences of the 5-year survival rates (>50 %) were demonstrated to having no obvious significance in subtypes and better than tumors at other locations of GC, which was consistent with the results of this study [20]. Preoperative nutritional status is one of critical factors for patient outcomes in a variety of surgeries, especially in gastrectomy. Currently, pre-albumin became the research focus as a serum biomarker for assessment of nutritional status due to shorter half-life (about 1.9 days) than albumin, which is a negative acute-phase protein synthesized in the liver. Additionally, because of the intense from gastric cancer surgery, acute-phase proteins were synthesized in the liver from structural proteins in the plasma. Therefore, the level of pre-albumin has a high sensitivity for understanding the metabolism state and immunity of the body. This study found that a high level of pre-albumin predicted a longer OS than low level in AEG patients. Moreover, pre-albumin was an independent factor for predicting postoperative survival outcomes. Li et al. reported that postoperative levels of pre-albumin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were associated with short-term outcomes and complications after gastrectomy, especially in elderly patients [21]. Due to absence of complete postoperative pre-albumin for this study, the relationships with surgical intense and short-term outcomes had not been determined further in AEG patients. Another index for assessing the immune and nutrition status was PNI, which was demonstrated to predicting the survival outcomes in patients after gastric cancer surgery. This study suggested AEG patients with a high level of PNI had a longer OS than others, although it was not an independent predictor in univariate analysis. One study of 548 patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy found that low PNI was associated with less tumor depth and lymph node metastasis [22]. Currently, the cutoff values of PNI in different studies were not same which were determined by ROC curves or X-title program, so a deterministic value of PNI to assessing survival outcomes is not scientific. The major limitations of this study were lack of complete specific tumor markers and inflammatory markers and was a retrospective single-center clinical research. Because patients with AEG of type I were treated by the Department of Thoracic Surgery, the subtype analysis had not been completed.

Conclusions

This study first established the relationships between preoperative indexes of hematology and prognosis of AEG patients and found that AEG patients with a high level of pre-albumin, hemoglobin, and PNI had longer OS. Moreover, our study further demonstrated that preoperative pre-albumin was an independent prognostic factor.
  22 in total

1.  Adenocarcinoma of the esophago-gastric junction.

Authors:  J. R. Siewert
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 7.370

2.  Usefulness of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in predicting short- and long-term mortality in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Basem Azab; Vijaya R Bhatt; Jaya Phookan; Srujitha Murukutla; Nina Kohn; Terenig Terjanian; Warren D Widmann
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: stomach.

Authors:  Kay Washington
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  The Global Burden of Cancer 2013.

Authors:  Christina Fitzmaurice; Daniel Dicker; Amanda Pain; Hannah Hamavid; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Michael F MacIntyre; Christine Allen; Gillian Hansen; Rachel Woodbrook; Charles Wolfe; Randah R Hamadeh; Ami Moore; Andrea Werdecker; Bradford D Gessner; Braden Te Ao; Brian McMahon; Chante Karimkhani; Chuanhua Yu; Graham S Cooke; David C Schwebel; David O Carpenter; David M Pereira; Denis Nash; Dhruv S Kazi; Diego De Leo; Dietrich Plass; Kingsley N Ukwaja; George D Thurston; Kim Yun Jin; Edgar P Simard; Edward Mills; Eun-Kee Park; Ferrán Catalá-López; Gabrielle deVeber; Carolyn Gotay; Gulfaraz Khan; H Dean Hosgood; Itamar S Santos; Janet L Leasher; Jasvinder Singh; James Leigh; Jost B Jonas; Jost Jonas; Juan Sanabria; Justin Beardsley; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Ken Takahashi; Richard C Franklin; Luca Ronfani; Marcella Montico; Luigi Naldi; Marcello Tonelli; Johanna Geleijnse; Max Petzold; Mark G Shrime; Mustafa Younis; Naohiro Yonemoto; Nicholas Breitborde; Paul Yip; Farshad Pourmalek; Paulo A Lotufo; Alireza Esteghamati; Graeme J Hankey; Raghib Ali; Raimundas Lunevicius; Reza Malekzadeh; Robert Dellavalle; Robert Weintraub; Robyn Lucas; Roderick Hay; David Rojas-Rueda; Ronny Westerman; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Sandra Nolte; Scott Patten; Scott Weichenthal; Semaw Ferede Abera; Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad; Ivy Shiue; Tim Driscoll; Tommi Vasankari; Ubai Alsharif; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Vasiliy V Vlassov; W S Marcenes; Wubegzier Mekonnen; Yohannes Adama Melaku; Yuichiro Yano; Al Artaman; Ismael Campos; Jennifer MacLachlan; Ulrich Mueller; Daniel Kim; Matias Trillini; Babak Eshrati; Hywel C Williams; Kenji Shibuya; Rakhi Dandona; Kinnari Murthy; Benjamin Cowie; Azmeraw T Amare; Carl Abelardo Antonio; Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela; Coen H van Gool; Francesco Violante; In-Hwan Oh; Kedede Deribe; Kjetil Soreide; Luke Knibbs; Maia Kereselidze; Mark Green; Rosario Cardenas; Nobhojit Roy; Taavi Tillmann; Taavi Tillman; Yongmei Li; Hans Krueger; Lorenzo Monasta; Subhojit Dey; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; G Anil Kumar; Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy; Lalit Dandona; Haidong Wang; Stein Emil Vollset; Ali Mokdad; Joshua A Salomon; Rafael Lozano; Theo Vos; Mohammad Forouzanfar; Alan Lopez; Christopher Murray; Mohsen Naghavi
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 31.777

5.  Anemia as an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with cancer: a systemic, quantitative review.

Authors:  J J Caro; M Salas; A Ward; G Goss
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  Cancer of the esophagogastric junction.

Authors:  H J Stein; M Feith; J R Siewert
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.279

7.  Cardia carcinoma considered as a distinct clinical entity.

Authors:  B Husemann
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Trends in incidence of oesophageal and stomach cancer subtypes in Europe.

Authors:  Jessie Steevens; Anita A M Botterweck; Miranda J M Dirx; Piet A van den Brandt; Leo J Schouten
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.566

9.  Specialized intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: prevalence and clinical data.

Authors:  W K Hirota; T M Loughney; D J Lazas; C L Maydonovitch; V Rholl; R K Wong
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  The prognostic nutritional index predicts long-term outcomes of gastric cancer patients independent of tumor stage.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Migita; Tomoyoshi Takayama; Keigo Saeki; Sohei Matsumoto; Kohei Wakatsuki; Koji Enomoto; Tetsuya Tanaka; Masahiro Ito; Norio Kurumatani; Yoshiyuki Nakajima
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  16 in total

1.  Preoperative prognostic nutritional index predicts short- and long-term outcomes after liver resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Yu Saito; Satoru Imura; Yuji Morine; Tetsuya Ikemoto; Shinichiro Yamada; Mitsuo Shimada
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 2.967

2.  Clinical Significance of the Prealbumin Level in Gastric Cancer Patients Who Receive Curative Treatment.

Authors:  Toru Aoyama; Masato Nakazono; Kenki Segami; Shinsuke Nagasawa; Kazuki Kano; Kentaro Hara; Yukio Maezawa; Itaru Hashimoto; Hideaki Suematsu; Hayato Watanabe; Keisuke Komori; Hiroshi Tamagawa; Norio Yukawa; Yasushi Rino; Takashi Ogata; Takashi Oshima
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2021-12-18

3.  A multidisciplinary team approach for nutritional interventions conducted by specialist nurses in patients with advanced colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy: A clinical trial.

Authors:  Jin-Xiang Lin; Xiang-Wei Chen; Zhan-Hong Chen; Xiu-Yan Huang; Jin-Jie Yang; Yan-Fang Xing; Liang-Hong Yin; Xing Li; Xiang-Yuan Wu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  Prognostic value of a novel FPR biomarker in patients with surgical stage II and III gastric cancer.

Authors:  Jing Zhang; Shu-Qi Li; Zhi-Hua Liao; Yu-Huan Jiang; Qing-Gen Chen; Bo Huang; Jing Liu; Yan-Mei Xu; Jin Lin; Hou-Qun Ying; Xiao-Zhong Wang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-09-06

5.  Prognostic Value of Pretreatment Serum Transthyretin Level in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancers.

Authors:  Hongliang Luo; Jun Huang; Zhengming Zhu; Peiqian Zhu
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 3.434

6.  Impact of Nutritional Indices on the Survival Outcomes of Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Zhengyu Hu; Yan Li; Weipu Mao; Bo Chen; Lin Yang; Xiangling Meng
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-03-26       Impact factor: 3.989

7.  Preoperative squamous cell carcinoma antigen and albumin serum levels predict the survival of patients with stage T1-3N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Lei-Lei Wu; Xuan Liu; Wei Huang; Peng Lin; Hao Long; Lan-Jun Zhang; Guo-Wei Ma
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 1.637

8.  Cumulative Score Based on Preoperative Fibrinogen and Pre-albumin Could Predict Long-term Survival for Patients with Resectable Gastric Cancer.

Authors:  Zhi-Jun Wu; Hui Xu; Rong Wang; Li-Jia Bu; Jie Ning; Ji-Qing Hao; Guo-Ping Sun; Tai Ma
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 4.207

Review 9.  Blood-based Markers in the Prognostic Prediction of Esophagogastric Junction Cancer.

Authors:  Can-Tong Liu; Chao-Qun Hong; Xu-Chun Huang; En-Min Li; Yi-Wei Xu; Yu-Hui Peng
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 4.207

10.  Preoperative prealbumin levels on admission as an independent predictive factor in patients with gastric cancer.

Authors:  Hongliang Zu; Huiling Wang; Chunfeng Li; Yingwei Xue
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.