| Literature DB >> 32764671 |
Tamuro Hayama1, Tsuyoshi Ozawa2, Yuka Okada2, Mitsuo Tsukamoto2, Yoshihisa Fukushima2, Ryu Shimada2, Keijiro Nozawa2, Keiji Matsuda2, Shoichi Fujii3, Yojiro Hashiguchi2.
Abstract
The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is a marker of nutrition and is associated with poor survival in various kinds of cancers. However, no reports have yet compared risk factors for colorectal cancer recurrence using a nutritional index. We assessed the predictive value of the CONUT score compared with the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) and Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We performed a retrospective cohort study of the medical records of 336 consecutive patients with stage I-I I I CRC who underwent curative resection at a single institution in 2012-2017. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify prognostic factors associated with relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). The low CONUT score group exhibited higher RFS and longer OS compared to the high CONUT score group (82.2% vs. 63.3%, p = 0.002 and 95.5% and 86.2%, p = 0.005, respectively). The Akaike's information criterion values of each index for RFS and OS were superior in CONUT score (723.71 and 315.46, respectively) compared to those of PNI (726.95 and 316.52) and mGPS (728.15 and 318.07, respectively). The CONUT score was found to be a good predictor of RFS and OS in patients with resectable CRC.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32764671 PMCID: PMC7413386 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-70252-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Clinicopathological features of the stage II colorectal cancer patients who underwent curative tumor resection.
| n = 301 (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 180 (60.8) | Female | 121 (40.2) |
| Age (years), median | Average | 67.74 | ||
| Location of cancer | Right side | 91 (30.2) | Left side | 210 (69.8) |
| Histology | tub1, tub2 | 268 (89.0) | Others | 33 (11) |
| Vascular invation | (+) | 90 (30.2) | (−) | 201(66.7) |
| Lymph invation | (+) | 142 (47.2) | (−) | 159 (52.8) |
| pT category (T1,2:T3≦) | T1,2 | 93 (30.9) | T3 ≤ | 208 (69.1) |
| N category | (+) | 189 (62.8) | (−) | 112 (37.2) |
| Preoperative CEA levels | Normal | 201 (66.8) | Higher | 100 (33.2) |
| Preoperative CA 19-9 levels | Normal | 250 (83.1) | Higher | 51 (16.9) |
| Early complications | (+) | 77 (25.6) | (−) | 224 (74.4) |
| CONUT score | 3> | 195 (64.8) | 3 ≤ | 106 (35.2) |
Figure 1Flow diagram of the cases analyzed in this study.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of RFS in patients with colorectal cancer.
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | CI | Hazard ratio | CI | |||
| Gender(male: female) | 1.004 | 0.613–1.614 | 0.986 | |||
| Age | 0.597 | 0.186–1.911 | 0.3755 | |||
| Location of cancer (right side: left side) | 1.06 | 0.630–1.740 | 0.8105 | |||
| Histology (tub1, tub2: others) | 1.128 | 0.395–2.533 | 0.799 | |||
| Vascular invasion | 3.413 | 1.786–7.373 | 0.0001 | 1.934 | 0.976–4.295 | 0.1079 |
| Lymph invasion | 3.372 | 1.995–6.003 | 0.0001 | 2.276 | 1.305–4.160 | 0.005 |
| pT category (T1,T2:T3≦) | 4.312 | 2.193–9.766 | 0.0001 | 2.323 | 1.122–5.456 | 0.022 |
| N category | 2.079 | 1.300–3.346 | 0.002 | 1.453 | 0.882–2.414 | 0.144 |
| Preoperative CEA levels | 2.218 | 1.380–3.550 | 0.001 | 1.773 | 1.095–2.874 | 0.022 |
| Preoperative CA 19-9 levels | 1.588 | 0.880–2.708 | 0.120 | |||
| Early complications | 1.781 | 1.070–2.890 | 0.027 | 1.720 | 1.091–2.874 | 0.021 |
| CONUT | 2.136 | 1.333–3.412 | 0.002 | 1.797 | 1.107–2.838 | 0.018 |
| PNI | 2.190 | 1.306–3.568 | 0.003 | 1.240 | 0.401–1.664 | 0.553 |
| mGPS | 1.695 | 0.995–2.787 | 0.052 | |||
Univariate and multivariate analyses of OS in patients with colorectal cancer.
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | CI | Hazard ratio | CI | |||
| Gender(male:female) | 1.274 | 0.626–2.750 | 0.510 | |||
| Age | 1.462 | 0.727–3.033 | 0.288 | |||
| Location of cancer (right side:left side) | 1.250 | 0.581–2.545 | 0.554 | |||
| Histology (tub1, tub2:others) | 1.295 | 0.388–8.028 | 0.715 | |||
| Vascular invasion | 3.413 | 1.272–11.02 | 0.012 | 1.551 | 0.564–5.481 | 0.418 |
| Lymph invasion | 4.485 | 1.971–12.05 | 0.0002 | 3.146 | 1.339–8.641 | 0.007 |
| pT category (T1,T2:T3≦) | 5.300 | 1.874–22.18 | 0.0007 | 2.803 | 0.906–12.33 | 0.076 |
| N category | 2.417 | 1.201–5.017 | 0.013 | 1.536 | 0.735–3.321 | 0.256 |
| Preoperative CEA levels | 2.548 | 1.268–5.169 | 0.010 | 1.855 | 0.911–3.818 | 0.088 |
| Preoperative CA 19-9 levels | 1.373 | 0.547–3.021 | 0.302 | |||
| Early complications | 2.023 | 0.950–4.125 | 0.067 | |||
| CONUT | 2.092 | 1.123–3.873 | 0.035 | 1.853 | 1.257–7.921 | 0.018 |
| PNI | 2.316 | 1.076–4.715 | 0.033 | 2.121 | 0.883–6.481 | 0.139 |
| mGPS | 1.970 | 0.947–3.969 | 0.069 | |||
Clinicopathologic features of CONUT score high groups in colorectal cancer.
| Variable category | CONUT score low group (n = 195) | CONUT score high group (n = 106) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.002 | |||
| ≦67 | 103(52.8) | 37(34.9) | |
| > 67 | 92(47.2) | 69(65.1) | |
| Male | 114(63.3) | 66(36.7) | 0.519 |
| Female | 81(66.9) | 40(33.1) | |
| 0.453 | |||
| tub1, tub2 | 183(65.3) | 97(34.6) | |
| Others | 12(64.8) | 9(35.2) | |
| 0.654 | |||
| (+) | 135(69.2) | 76(71.7) | |
| (−) | 60(30.7) | 30(28.3) | |
| 0.332 | |||
| (+) | 96(49.2) | 46(43.4) | |
| (−) | 99(50.7) | 60(56.6) | |
| 0.002 | |||
| T1,2 | 74(37.9) | 19(17.9) | |
| T3≦ | 121(58.1) | 87(82.1) | |
| 0.889 | |||
| (+) | 123(63.1) | 66(62.2) | |
| (−) | 72(36.9) | 40(37.7) | |
| 0.031 | |||
| (+) | 42(21.5) | 35(33) | |
| (−) | 153(78.4) | 71(67) |
Figure 2ALB, TLC, and cholesterol scattergraphs by CONUT score.
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier curves of 3 years relapse-free survival (RFS) and Over all survival (OS) based on the CONUT score. High CONUT score group was significantly associated with decreased 3-year RFS and OS.
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier survival curves according to (A) the mGPS for RFS, (B) the mGPS for OS, (C) the PNI for RFS, and (D) the PNI for OS.
Figure 5Correlation between albumin, TLC and CRP.