| Literature DB >> 34060373 |
Jiaguo Huang1, Liwei Zhao2, Kai Wang3, Ji Sun1, Shengcheng Tai1, Runmiao Hua1, Yufu Yu1, Yi Fan1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the clinical value of the Controlling Nutritional Status score in evaluating the prognosis of patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.Entities:
Keywords: controlling nutritional status score; non-muscle invasive bladder cancer; nutritional status; prediction index; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34060373 PMCID: PMC8204588 DOI: 10.1177/10732748211021078
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Control ISSN: 1073-2748 Impact factor: 3.302
Assessment of Undernutrition Status by the CONUT Score.
| Undernutrition degree | None | Light | Moderate | Severe |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serum albumin (g/dL) | ≥35 | 30-34.9 | 25-29 | <29 |
| Score | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Total lymphocyte count (/mm3) | ≥1600 | 1200-1599 | 800-1199 | <800 |
| Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | ≥180 | 140-179 | 100-139 | <100 |
| Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Clinicopathologic Characteristics of Patients.
| Factors | Value or number of patients (n = 88) |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | |
| Median | 64.5 |
| Range | 25-84 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 70 (79.55%) |
| Female | 18 (20.45%) |
| BMI | |
| <24 | 54 (61.36%) |
| ≥24 | 34 (38.64%) |
| Smoking history | 48 (54.55%) |
| T Stage | |
| Ta | 64 (72.73%) |
| T1 | 24 (27.27%) |
| Pathological grade | |
| Low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma | 53 (60.23%) |
| High-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma | 35 (39.77%) |
| Tumor diameter (cm) | |
| <3 | 55 (62.50%) |
| ≥3 | 33 (37.50%) |
| CONUT score | |
| 0 | 26 (29.55%) |
| 1 | 21 (23.86%) |
| 2 | 20 (22.73%) |
| 3 | 12 (13.64%) |
| 4 | 5 (5.68%) |
| 5 | 1 (1.14%) |
| 6 | 3 (3.41%) |
| Recurrence rate | 29/88 (32.95%) |
Figure 1.The optimal cut-off value for CONUT score was determined using X-tile software. The optimal cut-off value highlighted by the black circles (A) is shown in histograms of the entire cohort (B) and along with the Kaplan-Meier plots (C).
Comparison of Basic Clinical Data Between the 2 Groups.
| Factors | CONUT score |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low (n = 67) | High (n = 21) | ||
| Age (years) | 60.55 ± 12.46 | 71.19 ± 11.81 | <0.001 |
| BMI | 23.23 ± 3.05 | 22.24 ± 2.68 | 0.186 |
| Male | 51 | 19 | 0.155 |
| Smoking history | 31 | 17 | 0.005 |
| T Stage | |||
| Ta | 55 | 8 | <0.001 |
| T1 | 12 | 13 | |
| Pathological grade | |||
| Low-grade | 49 | 4 | <0.001 |
| High-grade | 18 | 17 | |
| Tumor diameter (cm) | |||
| <3 | 52 | 3 | <0.001 |
| ≥3 | 15 | 18 | |
| Recurrence rate | 13/67 | 16/21 | <0.001 |
| Serum albumin (g/dL) | 43.45 ± 3.57 | 37.58 ± 2.91 | <0.001 |
| Total lymphocyte count (/mm3) | 1.80 ± 0.41 | 1.07 ± 0.38 | <0.001 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 177.60 ± 20.85 | 148.80 ± 21.15 | <0.001 |
Figure 2.Kaplan-Meier curve analysis of RFS in the high and low CONUT score groups.
Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Prognostic Factors.
| Factors | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI |
| HR | 95%CI |
| |
| Age (<65, ≥65) | 2.757 | 1.254-6.060 | 0.012 | 1.133 | 0.458-2.805 | 0.787 |
| Gender (male, female) | 1.314 | 0.561-3.076 | 0.529 | |||
| BMI (<24, ≥24) | 0.536 | 0.237-1.211 | 0.134 | |||
| Smoking (yes, no) | 2.528 | 1.118-5.741 | 0.026 | 2.027 | 0.840-4.891 | 0.116 |
| T Stage (Ta, T1) | 3.686 | 1.772-7.665 | <0.001 | 0.588 | 0.203-1.703 | 0.327 |
| Pathological Grade (High, Low) | 5.756 | 2.532-13.084 | <0.001 | 3.423 | 1.050-11.156 |
|
| Size of Tumor (<3cm, ≥3cm) | 6.013 | 2.649-13.653 | <0.001 | 3.051 | 1.209-7.701 |
|
| CONUT Score (≤2, >2) | 6.890 | 3.253-14.592 | <0.001 | 4.938 | 1.392-17.525 |
|
a The bold value indicates that this data is statistically significant in multivariate analysis (P < 0.05).