Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Oct;147(10):3099-3111.
doi: 10.1007/s00432-021-03585-8. Epub 2021 Mar 9.

Application of four nutritional risk indexes in perioperative management for esophageal cancer patients

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Application of four nutritional risk indexes in perioperative management for esophageal cancer patients

Pei-Yu Wang et al. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2021 Oct.
Free PMC article

Abstract

Purpose: The Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), and Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score were devised for quantifying nutritional risk. This study evaluated their properties in detecting compromised nutrition and guiding perioperative management of esophageal cancer patients.

Methods: A prospective institutional database of esophageal cancer patients was reviewed and analyzed. Compromised nutritional status was defined as PNI < 50, NRI < 97.5, GNRI < 92, or CONUT score ≥ 4, respectively. The malnutrition diagnosis consensus established by the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN 2015) was selected as reference. Multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were used. External validation was conducted.

Results: After reviewing the 212-patient database, 192 patients were finally included. Among the four nutritional indexes, the GNRI < 92 showed highest sensitivity (72.0%), specificity (78.9%), and consistency (AUC 0.754, 95% CI 0.672-0.836) with malnutrition diagnosed by ESPEN 2015. The GNRI < 92 showed comparable performance with ESPEN 2015 in recognizing decreased fat mass, fat-free mass, and skeletal muscle mass (all P < 0.01). Both the GNRI < 92 and ESPEN 2015 showed good property in predicting major complications, infectious complications, overall complications and delayed hospital discharge (all P < 0.01), better than PNI < 50, NRI < 97.5, and CONUT score ≥ 4. Regarding the external validation, a retrospective analysis of 155 esophageal cancer patients confirmed the better performance of GNRI < 92 in predicting perioperative morbidities than other 3 nutritional indexes.

Conclusion: The GNRI was optimal in perioperative management of esophageal cancer patients among the four nutritional indexes and was an appropriate alternative to ESPEN 2015 for simplifying nutritional assessment.

Keywords: Esophageal cancer; Esophagectomy; Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index; Nutrition.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 2020 Dec 23;Publish Ahead of Print: - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 2018 Mar;267(3):435-442 - PubMed
    1. Clin Nutr. 2018 Aug;37(4):1323-1331 - PubMed
    1. Clin Nutr. 2017 Oct;36(5):1326-1332 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources