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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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