Nutritional Status Indices and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance Risk in the Elderly Population: Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Abstract

Objective: Although several studies have found dietary intake is related to multiple myeloma (MM) and its precursor status risks, the role of one’s nutritional status has been ignored and its role in plasma cell neoplasm development is still unclear. This study aimed to explore the relationship between various clinical indices of nutritional status and the risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) in the population. Methods: We selected 9520 participants from the NHANES III and NHANES 1999–2004 studies. Controlling nutritional status index (CONUT), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) and body mass index (BMI) were calculated as indices of nutritional status of the participants. Associations between nutritional indices and MGUS were investigated using multiple logistic regression, subgroup analysis, and an RCS model. Results: In our study, 266 participants had MGUS, with a prevalence of 2.79%. This study found that CONUT and PNI identified populations with poor nutritional status and had a significant positive correlation with the risk of MGUS. In multivariate logistic regression, compared with the lower CONUT score (<3) group, the OR for the group with higher scores (≥3) was 1.805 (95%CI: 1.271, 2.564). Compared with the lowest quartile group, the highest quartile PNI score group had an OR of 0.509 (95%CI: 0.290, 0.896). GNRI had no significant correlation with the risk of MGUS, with an OR of 0.737 (95%CI: 0.443, 1.227). Conclusion: This study found that older adults with CONUT and PNI scores indicating poorer nutrition had a higher risk of MGUS.

Geriatric nutritional risk index and mortality from all-cause, cancer, and non-cancer in US cancer survivors: NHANES 2001–2018

“…This method has been recognized as a significant predictor of outcomes in diverse cancer populations, illustrating its broad applicability and reliability ( 11 ). For practical application, GNRI scores lead to the classification of patients into two primary groups: those with a GNRI < 98 form the Low-GNRI group indicating higher nutritional risk, and those with a GNRI ≥ 98 compose the High-GNRI group suggesting lower nutritional risk ( 12 – 14 ). To refine the understanding of nutritional risk gradients, GNRI scores were further segmented into three tertiles.…”

“…To refine the understanding of nutritional risk gradients, GNRI scores were further segmented into three tertiles. This categorization helps clinicians identify patients at varying degrees of malnutrition risk more distinctly, with Tertile 1 representing the highest risk and Tertile 3 the lowest, thus enabling more targeted nutritional interventions based on the severity of risk ( 14 ).…”