Prognostic significance of the Naples prognostic score in colorectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection: a propensity score matching analysis

Sugimoto, Atsushi; Fukuoka, Tatsunari; Shibutani, Masatsune; Kasashima, Hiroaki; Kitayama, Kishu; Ohira, Masaichi; Maeda, Kiyoshi

doi:10.1186/s12876-023-02722-6

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this study has the strength to elucidate the importance of postoperative inflammatory and nutritional status as prognostic factors after CRC surgeries. Previous studies had limitations in assessing the preoperative tumor status and the patient's condition prior to surgeries [14,49]. However, because postoperative status can affect oncologic outcomes, our study highlighted the importance of assessing postoperative NPS as a predictor, in contrast to preoperative inflammatory assessment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Impact of Postoperative Naples Prognostic Score to Predict Survival in Patients with Stage II–III Colorectal Cancer

Park,

Woo,

Hong

et al. 2023

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Naples prognostic score (NPS) is a scoring system that reflects a patient’s systemic inflammatory and nutritional status. This study aimed to evaluate whether postoperative NPS is effective in assessing the prognosis of stage II–III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients compared with preoperative NPS. Methods: Between 2005 and 2012, a total of 164 patients diagnosed with stage II–III CRC, who underwent curative resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, were divided into two groups: Group 0–1 (NPS = 0–2) and Group 2 (NPS = 3 or 4). Preoperative NPS was calculated based on the results before surgeries, and postoperative NPS was assessed using the results obtained before adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: The overall survival of Group 0–1 was higher than that of Group 2 in both pre- and postoperative NPS assessments. According to the ROC curve analysis, the Area Under the Curve (AUC) ratio for postoperative NPS was 0.64, compared with 0.57 for preoperative NPS, 0.52 for the preoperative neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (p = 0.032), and 0.51 for the preoperative platelet–lymphocyte ratio (p = 0.027). Conclusions: Postoperative NPS is effective in predicting the prognosis of stage II–III CRC patients who underwent curative resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The use of NPS could be beneficial in evaluating the prognosis of CRC patients after surgeries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Impact of Postoperative Naples Prognostic Score to Predict Survival in Patients with Stage II–III Colorectal Cancer

Park,

Woo,

Hong

et al. 2023

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…four altered values were assigned a score of 2. Four studies evaluated the clinical impact of the NPS in patients with CRC (TableV)(117)(118)(119)(120). All studies evaluated patients in the surgical setting.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Impact of Nutrition and Inflammation Assessment Tools in Colorectal Cancer Treatment

AOYAMA,

YUKAWA,

SAITO

2024

Anticancer Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For resectable colorectal cancer (CRC), the standard treatment is perioperative adjuvant treatment and complete resection. For unresectable CRC, the standard treatment is systemic chemotherapy. The detection of promising biomarkers is necessary for optimizing the management of CRC and improving patient survival. If physicians can detect useful biomarkers, patients with CRC may benefit from more aggressive or less toxic treatment. Recent studies have shown that the inflammatory and nutritional status both influence the short and long-term oncological outcomes of patients with CRC during perioperative and/or chemotherapy. The utility of several tools for the evaluation of the inflammation and nutritional status has been reported. The introduction of such tools in the management of CRC could have a beneficial impact on postoperative surgical complications or adverse events of chemotherapy. An understanding of the characteristics of each of these evaluations is necessary for their introduction in daily clinical practice. The present report summarizes the background and current status of nutrition and inflammation evaluation tools and future perspectives on their application in the management of patients with CRC.Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide (1, 2). Curative resection and perioperative adjuvant treatment are standard treatments for resectable CRC, while chemotherapy is the standard treatment for unresectable CRC (3, 4). The prognosis of CRC is gradually improving, and the survival of more than half of patients with CRC is limited and poor after diagnosis. Therefore, CRC patients with risk factors for recurrence require more aggressive treatment and management.Recently, the nutritional and inflammatory status during treatment has been recognized as an important factor for both short-and long-term oncological outcomes in various malignancies (5-7). So far, various nutritional and inflammation assessment tools, such as the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT score), C-reactive protein Albumin ratio (CAR), and Albumin/Globulin Ratio (AGR), have been developed and evaluated in gastrointestinal cancers, including CRC. If physicians introduce these nutritional and inflammation assessment tools in daily clinical practice, CRC patients may be able to receive optimized treatments that are more aggressive in comparison to standard treatment. However, each nutritional and inflammatory evaluation tool has its own clinical characteristics. Therefore, physicians need to understand the characteristics of each nutritional and inflammation evaluation tool before their introduction into daily clinical practice.This review summarizes the background, current status, and future perspectives of nutritional and inflammatory assessment tools for CRC treatment. Clinical Impact of the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) for CRC TreatmentThe Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) was first reported b...

show abstract

The Naples prognostic score serves as a predictor and prognostic indicator for cancer survivors in the community

Liang,

Zhang,

Song

et al. 2024

BMC Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Inflammation, malnutrition, and cancer are intricately interconnected. Despite this, only a few studies have delved into the relationship between inflammatory malnutrition and the risk of death among cancer survivors. This study aimed to specifically investigate the association between the categorically defined Naples prognostic score (NPS) and the prognosis of cancer survivors. Methods Data from 42,582 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999–2018) were subjected to analysis. Naples prognostic scores (NPS) were computed based on serum albumin (ALB), total cholesterol (TC), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR), and participants were stratified into three groups accordingly. Cancer status was ascertained through a self-administered questionnaire, while mortality data were sourced from the National Death Index up to December 31, 2019. Multiple logistic regression was employed to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) between NPS and cancer prevalence within the U.S. community population. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the Log-rank test were utilized to compare survival disparities among the three groups. Additionally, Cox proportional regression was utilized to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% CI. Results The incidence of cancers was 9.86%. Among the participants, 8140 individuals (19.1%) were classified into Group 0 (NPS 0), 29,433 participants (69.1%) into Group 1 (NPS 1 or 2), and 5009 participants (11.8%) into Group 2 (NPS 3 or 4). After adjusting for confounding factors, the cancer prevalence for the highest NPS score yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 1.64 (95% CI: 1.36, 1.97) (P(for trend) < 0.05). In comparison to cancer survivors in Group 0, those with the highest NPS had adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 2.57 (95% CI: 1.73, 3.84) for all-cause mortality, 3.44 (95% CI: 1.64, 7.21) for cardiovascular mortality, 1.60 (95% CI: 1.01, 2.56) for cancer mortality, and 3.15 (95% CI: 1.74, 5.69) for other causes of mortality (All P(for trend) < 0.05). These associations remained consistent when stratified by age, sex, race, and body mass index. Conclusions This study indicates that the Naples prognostic score (NPS), serving as a novel prognostic metric integrating inflammation and nutritional status, is closely linked to cancer prognosis within the general population.

show abstract

Prognostic significance of the Naples prognostic score in colorectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection: a propensity score matching analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 30 publications

Impact of Postoperative Naples Prognostic Score to Predict Survival in Patients with Stage II–III Colorectal Cancer

Impact of Postoperative Naples Prognostic Score to Predict Survival in Patients with Stage II–III Colorectal Cancer

Clinical Impact of Nutrition and Inflammation Assessment Tools in Colorectal Cancer Treatment

The Naples prognostic score serves as a predictor and prognostic indicator for cancer survivors in the community

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About