Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
Comparative Prognostic Performance of CARWL and Naples Prognostic Score in Stage IIIC Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Definitive Chemoradiotherapy.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Topkan Erkan, Ozturk Duriye, Selek Ugur
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prognostic stratification remains challenging in patients with stage IIIC non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), and the relative performance of host-related prognostic indices in this setting is unclear. The CARWL (C-reactive Protein, Albumin, and Recent Weight Loss) score and the Naples prognostic score (NPS) have each been proposed as prognostic tools, but direct comparisons are lacking. This study compared their prognostic performance.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 795 patients with stage IIIC NSCLC treated with CCRT between 2010 and 2020. Patients were stratified into three prognostic groups according to CARWL and NPS. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint; progression-free survival (PFS) and locoregional PFS (LRPFS) were secondary endpoints. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression.
RESULTS: Both CARWL and NPS significantly stratified OS, PFS, and LRPFS (all p < 0.001). CARWL demonstrated modestly higher discriminatory performance across endpoints. The OS difference between unfavorable and favorable groups was larger with CARWL than with NPS (19.3 vs. 12.3 months). CARWL also provided greater separation for PFS (5.3 vs. 3.2 months) and LRPFS (4.9 vs. 3.4 months). In multivariable analyses, both indices retained independent prognostic significance; however, CARWL consistently exhibited stronger hazard gradients and maintained prognostic value when modeled alongside NPS.
CONCLUSIONS: Both CARWL and NPS offered meaningful prognostic stratification in stage IIIC NSCLC treated with CCRT, but CARWL demonstrated a modest but more consistent prognostic discrimination than NPS. Pending external validation, CARWL represents a practical and biologically grounded tool for risk stratification in this population.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 795 patients with stage IIIC NSCLC treated with CCRT between 2010 and 2020. Patients were stratified into three prognostic groups according to CARWL and NPS. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint; progression-free survival (PFS) and locoregional PFS (LRPFS) were secondary endpoints. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression.
RESULTS: Both CARWL and NPS significantly stratified OS, PFS, and LRPFS (all p < 0.001). CARWL demonstrated modestly higher discriminatory performance across endpoints. The OS difference between unfavorable and favorable groups was larger with CARWL than with NPS (19.3 vs. 12.3 months). CARWL also provided greater separation for PFS (5.3 vs. 3.2 months) and LRPFS (4.9 vs. 3.4 months). In multivariable analyses, both indices retained independent prognostic significance; however, CARWL consistently exhibited stronger hazard gradients and maintained prognostic value when modeled alongside NPS.
CONCLUSIONS: Both CARWL and NPS offered meaningful prognostic stratification in stage IIIC NSCLC treated with CCRT, but CARWL demonstrated a modest but more consistent prognostic discrimination than NPS. Pending external validation, CARWL represents a practical and biologically grounded tool for risk stratification in this population.