American journal of clinical oncology · 2019
The Value of Prognostic Nutritional Index in Follicular Lymphoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lee Shing Fung, Ng Ting Ying, Wong Frank Chi Sing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Previous studies reported that prognostic nutritional index (PNI), a marker of host inflammatory and nutritional status, is associated with prognoses in a number of cancer types. Thus, we investigated PNI at diagnosis as a prognostic factor in FL.
METHODS: We reviewed FL patients in Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong from 2000 to 2014 (n=88). PNI was calculated by serum albumin (g/L)+5×absolute lymphocyte count (10/L). We determined the best PNI cut-off value using receiver-operating characteristic curves. The extent to which progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival differed by PNI cut-off was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to adjust for covariates.
RESULTS: The best cut-off value for PNI was determined to be 45. Patients with high PNI (>45) had a higher complete response (CR) rate after primary treatment, 46 of 61 (75.4%) patients with high PNI had CR, compared with 10 of 23 (43.5%) for low PNI (2-sample test of proportions P-value=0.006). Further, higher PNI at relapse as a continuous variable was associated with superior postprogression survival with a hazard ratio (HR) 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.96). In multivariate analysis, high PNI at diagnosis had superior PFS (adjusted HR of 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: PNI was shown to be independent prognostic factor of PFS in FL. It is a cheap and widely available biomarker. Future study is needed to validate its prognostic value and clinical utility in a prospective cohort.
METHODS: We reviewed FL patients in Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong from 2000 to 2014 (n=88). PNI was calculated by serum albumin (g/L)+5×absolute lymphocyte count (10/L). We determined the best PNI cut-off value using receiver-operating characteristic curves. The extent to which progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival differed by PNI cut-off was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to adjust for covariates.
RESULTS: The best cut-off value for PNI was determined to be 45. Patients with high PNI (>45) had a higher complete response (CR) rate after primary treatment, 46 of 61 (75.4%) patients with high PNI had CR, compared with 10 of 23 (43.5%) for low PNI (2-sample test of proportions P-value=0.006). Further, higher PNI at relapse as a continuous variable was associated with superior postprogression survival with a hazard ratio (HR) 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.96). In multivariate analysis, high PNI at diagnosis had superior PFS (adjusted HR of 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: PNI was shown to be independent prognostic factor of PFS in FL. It is a cheap and widely available biomarker. Future study is needed to validate its prognostic value and clinical utility in a prospective cohort.