| Literature DB >> 35027861 |
Christine Bekos1, Christoph Grimm1, Lisa Gensthaler1,2, Thomas Bartl1, Alexander Reinthaller1,3, Richard Schwameis1, Stephan Polterauer1,3.
Abstract
Introduction The Controlling Nutritional (CONUT) Status score is an established predictor of impaired prognosis in patients with solid tumors. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of the CONUT score for overall survival and perioperative complication rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Patients In this retrospective study we assessed the data of 337 consecutive patients with ovarian cancer. The CONUT score was associated with surgical outcome, postoperative complications and clinicopathological parameters. We used univariate log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression models to evaluate the association between pretreatment CONUT scores and survival. Results A low CONUT score (0 - 2) was associated with an early FIGO stage (p = 0.004), complete tumor resection (p < 0.001), less neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.017) and other histologies than serous cystadenocarcinoma (p = 0.006). Postoperative complications were observed in 51.4% and 60.5% of patients with a CONUT score of 0 - 2 and a score > 2, respectively (p = 0.161). A shorter overall survival was observed in patients with a CONUT score > 2 compared to patients with a low CONUT score, with 5-year overall survival rates of 31.5% and 58.7%, respectively (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, both advanced age (p < 0.001) and FIGO stage (p < 0.001), residual disease (p < 0.001) and a high CONUT score (p = 0.048) were independently associated with unfavorable overall survival. Conclusion Pretreatment CONUT score is an independent prognostic marker for overall survival and associated with successful surgery. Patients with a high CONUT score might benefit from pretreatment nutritional intervention. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).Entities:
Keywords: malabsorption syndromes; ovarian cancer; ovarian neoplasms; postoperative complications
Year: 2022 PMID: 35027861 PMCID: PMC8747899 DOI: 10.1055/a-1608-1309
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd ISSN: 0016-5751 Impact factor: 2.915
Table 1 Patient characteristics of 337 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.
| Parameter | n (%) or median (IR) |
|---|---|
| IR = interquartile range; FIGO = International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics | |
| Total number of patients enrolled | 337 |
| Age at diagnosis, years | 59.54 (range: 13.40) |
| BMI | 25.84 (range: 9.66) |
| Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status | |
0 | 266 (78.9%) |
1 | 31 (9.2%) |
2 | 6 (1.8%) |
3 | 1 (0.3%) |
4 | 0 |
unknown | 33 (9.8%) |
| Histological type | |
serous adenocarcinoma | 212 (62.9%) |
endometroid adenocarcinoma | 55 (16.3%) |
mucinous adenocarcinoma | 16 (4.7%) |
clear cell carcinoma | 16 (4.7%) |
other | 38 (11.3%) |
| Histological grade | |
G1 | 48 (14.2%) |
G2 | 83 (24.6%) |
G3 | 189 (56.1%) |
unknown | 11 (3.3%) |
| Tumor stage | |
FIGO I | 70 (20.8%) |
FIGO II | 23 (6.8%) |
FIGO III | 194 (57.6%) |
FIGO IV | 49 (14.5%) |
unknown | 1 (0.3%) |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy | |
yes | 47 (13.9%) |
no | 290 (86.1%) |
| Residual disease | |
no residual disease | 207 (61.4%) |
residual disease | 123 (36.5%) |
unknown | 7 (2.1%) |
| Recurrence status | |
No. of patients with recurrent disease | 202 (59.9%) |
| Median time to recurrent disease (months) | 17.0 (8.0 – 34.75) |
| Status at last observation | |
alive with no evidence of disease or stable disease | 143 (42.4%) |
progressive disease | 41 (12.2%) |
tumor-related death | 138 (40.9%) |
death from other causes | 15 (4.5%) |
| Median time of follow-up (months) | 28.0 (14.0 – 71.0) |
Table 2 Relationship between clinicopathological variables and Controlling Nutritional Status score in 337 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.
| Controlling Nutritional Status score 0 – 2 (n = 256) | Controlling Nutritional Status score > 2 (n = 81) | p-value 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 χ 2 test; FIGO = International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; n = number; bold = p-values < 0.05 | |||
| Tumor stage |
| ||
FIGO I | 62 (24.3%) | 8 (9.9%) | |
FIGO II | 21 (8.2%) | 2 (2.5%) | |
FIGO III | 135 (52.9%) | 59 (72.8%) | |
FIGO IV | 37 (14.5%) | 12 (14.8%) | |
| Residual disease |
| ||
no residual disease | 172 (68.8%) | 37 (46.3%) | |
residual disease | 78 (31.2%) | 43 (53.8%) | |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy |
| ||
yes | 29 (11.3%) | 18 (22.2%) | |
no | 227 (88.7%) | 63 (77.8%) | |
| Age at first diagnosis | 0.315 | ||
≤ 59.5 years | 127 (49.6%) | 35 (43.2%) | |
> 59.6 years | 129 (50.4%) | 46 (56.8%) | |
| Histological grade | 0.117 | ||
G1 | 42 (16.7%) | 6 (7.5%) | |
G2 | 65 (25.9%) | 18 (22.5%) | |
G3 | 137 (54.6%) | 52 (27.5%) | |
unknown | 7 (2.8%) | 4 (5.0%) | |
| Histological type |
| ||
serous cystadenocarcinoma | 153 (59.8%) | 59 (72.8%) | |
other | 103 (40.2%) | 22 (27.2%) | |
Table 3 Numbers of postoperative complications classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and broken down according to the preoperative Controlling Nutritional Status score in 337 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.
| Postoperative complications | Controlling Nutritional Status score 0 – 2 (n = 256) | Controlling Nutritional Status score > 2 (n = 81) | Complete cohort |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = number | |||
| None | 120 (46.9%) | 32 (39.5%) | 152 (45.1%) |
| Grade 1 | 34 (13.3%) | 13 (16.0%) | 47 (13.9%) |
| Grade 2 | 64 (29.7%) | 24 (29.6%) | 88 (26.1%) |
| Grade 3a | 5 (2.0%) | 1 (1.2%) | 6 (1.8%) |
| Grade 3b | 12 (4.7%) | 9 (11.1%) | 21 (6.2%) |
| Grade 4 | 8 (3.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (2.4%) |
| Grade 5 | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (2.5%) | 6 (1.8%) |
| Unknown | 9 (3.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 9 (2.8%) |
| Total | 256 | 81 | 337 |
Fig. 1Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival broken down according to pretreatment CONUT scores (n = 337).
Table 4 Univariate and multivariate overall survival analyses in 337 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.
| Overall survival | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate 1 analysis | Multivariate 2 analysis | |||
| p-value | 5-year overall survival rate | p-value | HR (95% CI) | |
| 1 log rank test; 2 multivariate Cox regression analysis; HR = hazard ratio; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; bold = p-values < 0.05 | ||||
| Controlling Nutritional Status score (> 2 vs. 0 – 2) |
| 31.5% vs. 58.7% |
| 1.4 (1.0 – 2.1) |
| FIGO stage (IV vs. III vs. II vs. I) |
| 28.9% vs. 42.3% vs. 66.8% vs. 92.0% |
| 1.5 (1.2 – 1.9) |
| Patient age (> 59.6 vs. ≤ 59.5 years) |
| 42.2% vs. 64.0% |
| 2.0 (1.4 – 2.9) |
| Histological grade (high-grade vs. low-grade) |
| 42.3% vs. 62.8% | 0.890 | 1.0 (0.7 – 1.5) |
| Residual disease (residual disease vs. no residual disease) |
| 23.8% vs. 66.7% |
| 2.5 (1.7 – 3.6) |
| Type of histology (serous adenocarcinoma vs. other) |
| 45.0% vs. 64.1% | 0.936 | 1.0 (0.7 – 1.4) |
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier curves for progression-free survival broken down according to pretreatment CONUT scores (n = 337).
Table 5 Univariate and multivariate progression-free survival analyses in 337 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.
| Progression-free survival | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate 1 analysis | Multivariate 2 analysis | |||
| p-value | 5-year progression-free survival rate | p-value | HR (95% CI) | |
| 1 log rank test; 2 multivariate Cox regression analysis; HR = hazard ratio; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; bold = p-values < 0.05 | ||||
| Controlling Nutritional Status score (> 2 vs. 0 – 2) |
| 21.5% vs. 34.2% |
| 1.3 (0.9 – 1.8) |
| FIGO stage (IV vs. III vs. II vs. I) |
| 4.5% vs. 19.7% vs. 37.1% vs. 79.7% |
| 2.0 (1.6 – 2.4) |
| Patient age (> 59.6 vs. ≤ 59.5 years) |
| 25.0% vs. 39.3% |
| 1.6 (1.2 – 2.1) |
| Histological grade (high-grade vs. low-grade) |
| 27.4% vs. 59.7% |
| 0.8 (0.6 – 1.2) |
| Residual disease (residual disease vs. no residual disease) |
| 9.3% vs. 44.5% |
| 2.0 (1.4 – 2.7) |
| Type of histology (serous adenocarcinoma vs. other) |
| 22.6% vs. 47.0% |
| 1.0 (0.7 – 1.5) |