SNDT WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY
BMK Knowledge Resource Centre
Vithaldas Vidyavihar, Juhu Tara Road,
Santacruz (West) Mumbai - 400049
The Weight of Nutrition on Post-Resection Oncologic Morbidity and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nutritional Indices
Katherine Pierce
The Weight of Nutrition on Post-Resection Oncologic Morbidity and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nutritional Indices - Pages 988–1005
Context
Nutritional status is a critical factor in the selection of patients for solid tumor resection. A variety of indices have been developed to quantify nutritional status, and they have differing degrees of predictive power for various postoperative outcomes.
Objective
This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the predictive ability of commonly used nutritional indices in relation to postoperative complications (POCs), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and OS.
Data Sources
We performed a systematic review of 14 established nutritional indices from January 2015 to July 2022:
Data Extraction
The primary end point was OS, while the secondary end points were POCs and RFS. A subsequent meta-analysis was performed to further assess the predictive ability of these indices for OS based on general index type, primary tumor site, and the patient’s index status.
Data Analysis
In this evaluation, 38 articles reporting data on 23 970 patients were analyzed, focusing on 14 nutritional indices. The indices were categorized into phenotypic, metabolic, immunologic, and combined types. Patients within the cut-off range of any index were predicted to have lower OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.14, 95% CI 1.84–2.49, P < .01). Lower gastrointestinal (GI) and “other” sites were less predictive than upper GI primary tumors (HR 1.63, HR 1.82, and HR 2.54, respectively; all with P < .01). Phenotypic indices were less predictive than combined indices (HR 1.73 vs HR 2.47, P < .01). Within the combined category, there was no significant difference in the predictive ability of Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) vs Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) vs Controlling Nutritional Index (CONUT) (HR 2.63 vs HR 2.42 vs HR 2.07, P = .07).
Conclusion
The predictive efficacy of a nutritional index was found to be highly dependent on the index type, the primary tumor site, and the outcome of interest. In the context of upper GI resections, nutritional status appeared to be more of a significant predictor of OS, compared with cases involving lower GI and hepatic malignancies. Indices that integrate phenotypic, metabolic, and immunologic patient factors potentially offer greater clinical utility in forecasting OS.
cancer cachexia
malnutrition
sarcopenia
The Weight of Nutrition on Post-Resection Oncologic Morbidity and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nutritional Indices - Pages 988–1005
Context
Nutritional status is a critical factor in the selection of patients for solid tumor resection. A variety of indices have been developed to quantify nutritional status, and they have differing degrees of predictive power for various postoperative outcomes.
Objective
This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the predictive ability of commonly used nutritional indices in relation to postoperative complications (POCs), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and OS.
Data Sources
We performed a systematic review of 14 established nutritional indices from January 2015 to July 2022:
Data Extraction
The primary end point was OS, while the secondary end points were POCs and RFS. A subsequent meta-analysis was performed to further assess the predictive ability of these indices for OS based on general index type, primary tumor site, and the patient’s index status.
Data Analysis
In this evaluation, 38 articles reporting data on 23 970 patients were analyzed, focusing on 14 nutritional indices. The indices were categorized into phenotypic, metabolic, immunologic, and combined types. Patients within the cut-off range of any index were predicted to have lower OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.14, 95% CI 1.84–2.49, P < .01). Lower gastrointestinal (GI) and “other” sites were less predictive than upper GI primary tumors (HR 1.63, HR 1.82, and HR 2.54, respectively; all with P < .01). Phenotypic indices were less predictive than combined indices (HR 1.73 vs HR 2.47, P < .01). Within the combined category, there was no significant difference in the predictive ability of Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) vs Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) vs Controlling Nutritional Index (CONUT) (HR 2.63 vs HR 2.42 vs HR 2.07, P = .07).
Conclusion
The predictive efficacy of a nutritional index was found to be highly dependent on the index type, the primary tumor site, and the outcome of interest. In the context of upper GI resections, nutritional status appeared to be more of a significant predictor of OS, compared with cases involving lower GI and hepatic malignancies. Indices that integrate phenotypic, metabolic, and immunologic patient factors potentially offer greater clinical utility in forecasting OS.
cancer cachexia
malnutrition
sarcopenia