Cargando…
Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study
Little is known about the value of the nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002) scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We conducted a large‐scale study to address this issue. We employed a big‐data intelligence database platform at our center and identified 3232 eligible patients treated between...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5989749/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29624824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cas.13603 |
_version_ | 1783329513563750400 |
---|---|
author | Peng, Hao Chen, Bin‐Bin Tang, Ling‐Long Chen, Lei Li, Wen‐Fei Zhang, Yuan Mao, Yan‐Ping Sun, Ying Liu, Li‐Zhi Tian, Li Guo, Ying Ma, Jun |
author_facet | Peng, Hao Chen, Bin‐Bin Tang, Ling‐Long Chen, Lei Li, Wen‐Fei Zhang, Yuan Mao, Yan‐Ping Sun, Ying Liu, Li‐Zhi Tian, Li Guo, Ying Ma, Jun |
author_sort | Peng, Hao |
collection | PubMed |
description | Little is known about the value of the nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002) scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We conducted a large‐scale study to address this issue. We employed a big‐data intelligence database platform at our center and identified 3232 eligible patients treated between 2009 and 2013. Of the 3232 (12.9% of 24 986) eligible patients, 469 (14.5%), 13 (0.4%), 953 (29.5%), 1762 (54.5%) and 35 (1.1%) had NRS2002 scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Survival outcomes were comparable between patients with NRS2002 <3 and ≥3 (original scale). However, patients with NRS2002 ≤3 vs >3 (regrouping scale) had significantly different 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS; 82.7% vs 75.0%, P < .001), overall survival (OS; 88.8% vs 84.1%, P = .001), distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS; 90.2% vs 85.9%, P = .001) and locoregional relapse‐free survival (LRRFS; 91.6% vs 87.2%, P = .001). Therefore, we proposed a revised NRS2002 scale, and found that it provides a better risk stratification than the original or regrouping scales for predicting DFS (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.530 vs 0.554 vs 0.577; P < .05), OS (AUC = 0.534 vs 0.563 vs 0.582; P < .05), DMFS (AUC = 0.531 vs 0.567 vs 0.590; P < .05) and LRRFS (AUC = 0.529 vs 0.542 vs 0.564; P < .05 except scale A vs B). Our proposed NRS2002 scale represents a simple, clinically useful tool for nutritional risk screening in NPC. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5989749 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59897492018-06-20 Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study Peng, Hao Chen, Bin‐Bin Tang, Ling‐Long Chen, Lei Li, Wen‐Fei Zhang, Yuan Mao, Yan‐Ping Sun, Ying Liu, Li‐Zhi Tian, Li Guo, Ying Ma, Jun Cancer Sci Original Articles Little is known about the value of the nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002) scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We conducted a large‐scale study to address this issue. We employed a big‐data intelligence database platform at our center and identified 3232 eligible patients treated between 2009 and 2013. Of the 3232 (12.9% of 24 986) eligible patients, 469 (14.5%), 13 (0.4%), 953 (29.5%), 1762 (54.5%) and 35 (1.1%) had NRS2002 scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Survival outcomes were comparable between patients with NRS2002 <3 and ≥3 (original scale). However, patients with NRS2002 ≤3 vs >3 (regrouping scale) had significantly different 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS; 82.7% vs 75.0%, P < .001), overall survival (OS; 88.8% vs 84.1%, P = .001), distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS; 90.2% vs 85.9%, P = .001) and locoregional relapse‐free survival (LRRFS; 91.6% vs 87.2%, P = .001). Therefore, we proposed a revised NRS2002 scale, and found that it provides a better risk stratification than the original or regrouping scales for predicting DFS (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.530 vs 0.554 vs 0.577; P < .05), OS (AUC = 0.534 vs 0.563 vs 0.582; P < .05), DMFS (AUC = 0.531 vs 0.567 vs 0.590; P < .05) and LRRFS (AUC = 0.529 vs 0.542 vs 0.564; P < .05 except scale A vs B). Our proposed NRS2002 scale represents a simple, clinically useful tool for nutritional risk screening in NPC. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-05-18 2018-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5989749/ /pubmed/29624824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cas.13603 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Peng, Hao Chen, Bin‐Bin Tang, Ling‐Long Chen, Lei Li, Wen‐Fei Zhang, Yuan Mao, Yan‐Ping Sun, Ying Liu, Li‐Zhi Tian, Li Guo, Ying Ma, Jun Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study |
title | Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study |
title_full | Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study |
title_fullStr | Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study |
title_short | Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study |
title_sort | prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a large‐scale cohort study |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5989749/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29624824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cas.13603 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT penghao prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT chenbinbin prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT tanglinglong prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT chenlei prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT liwenfei prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT zhangyuan prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT maoyanping prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT sunying prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT liulizhi prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT tianli prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT guoying prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy AT majun prognosticvalueofnutritionalriskscreening2002scaleinnasopharyngealcarcinomaalargescalecohortstudy |