Research ArticleClinical Studies
Open Access

Prognostic Significance of Innovative Inflammation-nutrition Biomarker Score in Patients With Colorectal Cancer

MASATSUNE SHIBUTANI, SHINICHIRO KASHIWAGI, HIDEKI TANDA, YUKI SEKI, KOJI TAKADA, HIROAKI KASASHIMA, TATSUNARI FUKUOKA and KIYOSHI MAEDA
Anticancer Research December 2024, 44 (12) 5559-5567; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.17382

Abstract

Background/Aim: A new index, inflammation-nutrition biomarker score (INS), based on host factors, including lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio, C-reactive protein to albumin ratio, advanced lung cancer inflammation index, and nutritional risk index, correlated with post-operative survival time independent of the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) stage, in a cohort of patients with various types of malignancies. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of INS in patients with colorectal cancer who underwent curative resection. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 476 consecutive patients who underwent curative surgery for stage I-III colorectal cancer. Results: Based on the INS definition, 240, 132, 57, 23, and 24 patients had a score of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Patients with INS of 0 and 1 were classified into the low-INS group, and those with INS of 2, 3, and 4 were classified into the high-INS group. The relapse-free and overall survival rates were significantly worse in the high-INS group than in the low-INS group. Furthermore, multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors indicated that INS is an independent prognostic factor for poor relapse-free and overall survival. Conclusion: The combined evaluation of INS and TNM stages may allow for more accurate prognostication.

Key Words:

In clinical practice, the most commonly used index for predicting prognosis and determining treatment strategies for colorectal cancer is the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification based on pathological findings (1, 2). This staging system is useful; however, differences in prognosis exist within the same TNM stage (3, 4). Moreover, treatment outcomes, such as recurrence rate, survival time, and chemotherapeutic efficacy, are influenced not only by tumor factors but also by host factors (5-8). Therefore, the clinical application of prognostic markers based on host factors that can be used with the TNM staging system is expected.

Our previous reports have shown a correlation between cancer progression and host factors, such as inflammation, immunity, and nutrition (9-13). Indices based on these factors are reliable markers with excellent prognostic value; however, no established consensus has been reached regarding which indicator most accurately reflects the prognosis of patients with cancer. Recently, Xie et al. conducted a prospective study of prognostic markers in over 5,000 patients with cancer (14). In this study, among the various inflammatory markers, the lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LCR) and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR) were the most effective indices for prognostic evaluation of patients with cancer. Among the various nutritional indices, the advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI) and nutritional risk index (NRI) are the most effective for the prognostic evaluation of patients with cancer. A new index, inflammation-nutrition biomarker score (INS), comprised these four indices, and stratification based on this index was closely correlated with post-operative survival time independent of the TNM stage. Evaluating various aspects, such as blood cell counts, serum protein levels, and body weight and combining several markers that have often been used singly or in a certain combination, the prognostic accuracy of INS exceeded that of existing prognostic markers based on host factors.

However, this study participants had various types of malignancies. The utility of INS has been confirmed in a subgroup analysis targeting gastrointestinal cancer; however, its utility as a prognostic marker specialized for patients with colorectal cancer is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of INS in patients with colorectal cancer who underwent curative resection.

Patients and Methods

Patients. We retrospectively evaluated 476 consecutive patients who underwent curative surgery for stages I-III colorectal cancer at the department of gastroenterological surgery of Osaka City University Hospital between January 2015 and December 2019. Patients with other synchronous malignancies were excluded. The ethics committee of Osaka City University approved this retrospective study (approved number: 4182), which was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided written informed consent for treatment and data analyses.

Methods. Blood samples were obtained within 1 month prior to surgery. INS components, including four inflammatory and immune markers, were calculated as follows: LCR=peripheral lymphocyte count (/μl)/serum C-reactive protein concentration (g/dl); CAR=serum C-reactive protein concentration (g/dl)/serum albumin concentration (g/dl); ALI=body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2) × serum albumin concentration (g/dl)/neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio [BMI=the weight (kg)/the height squared (m2)]; Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio=peripheral neutrophil count (/μl)/peripheral lymphocyte count (/μl); NRI=1.519 × serum albumin concentration (g/dl) + 41.7 × present weight (kg)/usual weight (kg). The cut-off values for each index were set as follows based on previous reports (14): LCR, 2,813; CAR, 0.165; ALI, 33; and NRI, 94. Low LCR, high CAR, low ALI, and low NRI were each scored 1 point, and the sum of these scores was used as the INS value.

Statistical analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software package for Windows (SPSS: Ver.26, Chicago, IL, USA). The significance of the differences in INS and clinicopathological factors was analyzed using chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, and Mann–Whitney U-test. Relapse-free survival was defined as the interval between the date of surgery and the date of diagnosis of the first recurrence, death from any cause, or last follow-up. Overall survival was defined as the interval between the date of surgery and the date of death from any cause or the last follow-up. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences in survival curves were assessed using log-rank test. Factors with a p-value <0.1, as determined via univariate analysis, were included in the multivariate analysis. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate prognostic factors associated with survival. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

We included 279 men and 197 women with a median age of 71 years (range=21-92 years). The median follow-up was 51.2 months. Relapsed patients and those who died during the follow-up period were 67 (14.1%) and 62 (13.0%), respectively. The median values (range) of each index were LCR: 15,500 (164.6-372,040.0), CAR: 0.0250 (0.0002-3.6542), ALI: 37.7 (4.8-130.1), and NRI: 100.9 (67.5-114.6). The prevalence rates of LCR <2,813, CAR ≥0.165, ALI <33, and NRI <94 were 14.1%, 13.7%, 40.3%, and 18.3%, respectively. Based on the INS definition, 240, 132, 57, 23, and 24 patients had a score of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

Survival analyses based on the indices of INS components. Regarding relapse-free survival, significant correlations were observed between LCR, CAR, NRI, and survival outcomes (p=0.003, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively), and ALI correlated with survival outcomes (p=0.054) (Figure 1). Regarding overall survival, significant correlations were observed between LCR, ALI, NRI, and survival outcomes (p=0.037, 0.006, and p<0.001, respectively), and CAR correlated with survival outcomes (p=0.060) (Figure 2).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier curves for relapse-free survival based on the indices of the components of inflammation-nutrition biomarker score. (A) Lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LCR), (B) C-reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR), (C) advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI), and (D) nutritional risk index (NRI).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival based on the indices of the components of inflammation-nutrition biomarker score. (A) Lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LCR), (B) C-reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR), (C) advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI), and (D) nutritional risk index (NRI).

Survival analyses based on INS. Compared with patients with INS of 2, 3, and 4, those with INS of 0 and 1 had better relapse-free survival (Figure 3). Therefore, patients with INS of 0 and 1 were classified into the low-INS group, and those with INS of 2, 3, and 4 were classified into the high-INS group. Relapse-free and overall survival rates were significantly worse in the high-INS group than in the low-INS group (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively) (Figure 4).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Kaplan–Meier curves for relapse-free survival based on the inflammation-nutrition biomarker score (INS).

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Kaplan–Meier curves for relapse-free survival (A) and overall survival (B) based on the inflammation-nutrition biomarker score (INS).

Associations between clinicopathological factors and indicators based on immunity, inflammation and nutrition, including INS. Table I shows the associations between clinicopathological factors and indicators based on immunity, inflammation, and nutrition, including INS. Low LCR was significantly associated with higher age, right-sided tumor, large tumor diameter, high-grade histology, T4, and high carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels than high LCR. High CAR was significantly associated with older age, large tumor diameter, and higher CEA level than low LCR. Low ALI was significantly associated with older age, large tumor diameter, high-grade histology, and stage T4 than high ALI. Low NRI was significantly associated with older age, large tumor diameter, high-grade histology, and higher CEA level than high NRI. High INS was significantly associated with older age, large tumor diameter, and higher CEA level than low INS.

View this table:
Table I.

Associations between clinicopathological factors and indicators based on immunity, inflammation and nutrition, and inflammation-nutrition biomarker score (INS).

Prognostic factors for relapse-free/overall survival identified via univariate and multivariate analyses. Table II shows the associations between relapse-free survival and clinico-pathological features. Based on the univariate analysis, relapse-free survival was significantly associated with tumor depth, lymph node metastasis, and INS, and it tended to be associated with CEA level. Multivariate analysis indicated that stage T4, lymph node metastasis, and high INS were independent prognostic factors for poor relapse-free survival.

View this table:
Table II.

Prognostic factors for relapse-free survival.

Table III shows the associations between the overall survival and clinicopathological features. Based on the univariate analysis, overall survival was significantly associated with tumor depth, histology, and INS. Multivariate analysis indicated that stage T4 and INS were independent prognostic factors for poor overall survival.

View this table:
Table III.

Prognostic factors for overall survival.

Correlation between INS and relapse-free survival in patients with stage II colorectal cancer. In the stage II subgroup, patients with high INS had worse relapse-free survival than those with low INS, although this difference was insignificant (Figure 5).

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Kaplan–Meier curves for relapse-free survival based on the inflammation-nutrition biomarker score (INS) in patients with stage II colorectal cancer.

Discussion

This study demonstrated that INS correlates with the prognosis of patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer who underwent curative surgery. Additionally, LCR, CAR, ALI, and NRI, which are components of INS, correlated with the prognosis of patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer. Furthermore, INS correlated with tumor factors, although INS is a marker based on host factors, such as inflammation, nutrition, and immune function.

Inflammation promotes cancer growth, invasion, and metastasis by stimulating cancer cells and cancer microenvironment via inflammatory cytokines (15). Therefore, the presence of inflammation before treatment worsens therapeutic outcomes. Systemic inflammation caused by the interaction between cancer and the host is reflected in the absolute white blood cell count and differential count of leukocytes, such as neutrophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes, and serum concentration of inflammatory proteins such as CRP. Neutrophils play a key role in cancer progression and metastasis (16), whereas lymphocytes play a key role in antitumor immunity and suppression of cancer progression (17). High CRP levels indicate that many inflammatory cytokines are released, indicating accelerated cancer progression (18). Serum albumin level is often used as an indicator of malnutrition; however, its levels are affected by systemic inflammation regardless of malnutrition because inflammatory cytokines suppress albumin synthesis in the liver (19, 20). Therefore, serum albumin level is an inflammatory marker.

Nutrition is an important factor that influences the outcomes of cancer treatment. Malnutrition worsens survival after radical resection of colorectal cancer and reduces the efficacy of chemotherapy for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (13, 21, 22). Among gastrointestinal cancers, large tumors are more likely to be directly related to malnutrition because of gastrointestinal obstruction. Therefore, malnutrition may reflect an advanced stage of cancer. In contrast, malnutrition-induced immune dysfunction provides a favorable environment for developing invisible micrometastases in imaging studies (23). Objectively evaluating nutritional status is difficult; however, INS includes serum albumin levels and body weight loss as nutritional indicators. Hypoalbuminemia correlates with prognosis independent of inflammation (24), and recent body weight loss may indirectly indicate malnutrition owing to gastrointestinal obstruction or disease progression. ALI is a sensitive prognostic indicator for radical resection cases and patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (25, 26); however, BMI (a component of ALI) is questionable as an optimal indicator for assessing nutritional status because patients with obesity may be judged to have a good nutritional status. Obesity and a good nutritional status are not synonymous. BMI evaluating only body weight and not muscle mass, which is important in cachexia assessment, is another concern (27).

Several reports have investigated host factors influencing the prognosis of patients with cancer, and the cut-off values of prognostic markers have often been debated. The optimal cut-off value may differ depending on the type and stage of cancer; however, INS was correlated with the prognosis of colorectal cancer when using cut-off values derived from a previous large-scale study targeting various cancer types (14). We confirmed the utility of INS as a prognostic marker, including the cut-off values in a validation specific to patients with colorectal cancer.

INS is an indicator based on host factors; however, high INS correlates with the characteristics of a highly malignant tumor, such as a larger tumor diameter, stage T4, and higher CEA level. This result may be because inflammation and malnutrition are closely associated with cancer progression. In contrast, high INS levels were associated with older age. This finding may be because the elderly are more prone to malnutrition and immune dysfunction (13).

Subgroup analyses limited to patients with stage II colorectal cancer revealed differences in the recurrence rate based on INS. The efficacy of post-operative adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colorectal cancer is limited, and adjuvant chemotherapy should be limited to patients with a high risk of recurrence, such as those with stage T4, poorly differentiated histology, lymphovascular involvement, fewer than 12 examined lymph nodes, bowel perforation or obstruction, and elevated CEA level (28-30). As the high-INS group correlated with worse relapse-free survival in patients with stage II colorectal cancer, determining the indication for adjuvant chemotherapy using INS with the existing TNM staging system may be effective.

Peripheral blood cell counts and serum C-reactive protein/albumin levels are inexpensive and routinely measured in daily practice. Additionally, information regarding changes in body weight can be easily obtained. Therefore, INS is a marker that is easy to use in daily practice. Indications for adjuvant chemotherapy and surveillance intervals may be determined based on risk classification using the TNM stage and INS.

In conclusion, the combined evaluation of INS and TNM stages may allow for more accurate prognostication, leading to individualized treatment strategies based on risk, such as indications for adjuvant chemotherapy, and strict surveillance with short intervals.

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for the English language editing.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    MS designed the study, performed statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript. SK, HT, YS, KT, HK, TF, and KM collected clinical data and critically reviewed the manuscript.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare no conflicts of interest in association with the present study.

  • Received October 18, 2024.
  • Revision received October 26, 2024.
  • Accepted October 29, 2024.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Benson AB,
    2. Venook AP,
    3. Al-Hawary MM,
    4. Cederquist L,
    5. Chen YJ,
    6. Ciombor KK,
    7. Cohen S,
    8. Cooper HS,
    9. Deming D,
    10. Engstrom PF,
    11. Garrido-Laguna I,
    12. Grem JL,
    13. Grothey A,
    14. Hochster HS,
    15. Hoffe S,
    16. Hunt S,
    17. Kamel A,
    18. Kirilcuk N,
    19. Krishnamurthi S,
    20. Messersmith WA,
    21. Meyerhardt J,
    22. Miller ED,
    23. Mulcahy MF,
    24. Murphy JD,
    25. Nurkin S,
    26. Saltz L,
    27. Sharma S,
    28. Shibata D,
    29. Skibber JM,
    30. Sofocleous CT,
    31. Stoffel EM,
    32. Stotsky-Himelfarb E,
    33. Willett CG,
    34. Wuthrick E,
    35. Gregory KM,
    36. Freedman-Cass DA
    : NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colon Cancer, Version 2.2018. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16(4): 359-369, 2018. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Benson AB,
    2. Venook AP,
    3. Al-Hawary MM,
    4. Arain MA,
    5. Chen YJ,
    6. Ciombor KK,
    7. Cohen S,
    8. Cooper HS,
    9. Deming D,
    10. Garrido-Laguna I,
    11. Grem JL,
    12. Gunn A,
    13. Hoffe S,
    14. Hubbard J,
    15. Hunt S,
    16. Kirilcuk N,
    17. Krishnamurthi S,
    18. Messersmith WA,
    19. Meyerhardt J,
    20. Miller ED,
    21. Mulcahy MF,
    22. Nurkin S,
    23. Overman MJ,
    24. Parikh A,
    25. Patel H,
    26. Pedersen K,
    27. Saltz L,
    28. Schneider C,
    29. Shibata D,
    30. Skibber JM,
    31. Sofocleous CT,
    32. Stoffel EM,
    33. Stotsky-Himelfarb E,
    34. Willett CG,
    35. Johnson-Chilla A,
    36. Gurski LA
    : NCCN Guidelines Insights: Rectal Cancer, Version 6.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 18(7): 806-815, 2020. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.0032
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Jung SH,
    2. Hao J,
    3. Shivakumar M,
    4. Nam Y,
    5. Kim J,
    6. Kim MJ,
    7. Ryoo SB,
    8. Choe EK,
    9. Jeong SY,
    10. Park KJ,
    11. Park SC,
    12. Sohn DK,
    13. Oh JH,
    14. Won HH,
    15. Kim D,
    16. Park JW
    : Development and validation of a novel strong prognostic index for colon cancer through a robust combination of laboratory features for systemic inflammation: a prognostic immune nutritional index. Br J Cancer 126(11): 1539-1547, 2022. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01767-w
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Xie H,
    2. Wei L,
    3. Liu M,
    4. Liang Y,
    5. Yuan G,
    6. Gao S,
    7. Wang Q,
    8. Lin X,
    9. Tang S,
    10. Gan J
    : Prognostic significance of preoperative prognostic immune and nutritional index in patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 22(1): 1316, 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10405-w
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Wang F,
    2. He W,
    3. Jiang C,
    4. Guo G,
    5. Ke B,
    6. Dai Q,
    7. Long J,
    8. Xia L
    : Prognostic value of inflammation-based scores in patients receiving radical resection for colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 18(1): 1102, 2018. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4842-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ishizuka M,
    2. Nagata H,
    3. Takagi K,
    4. Kubota K
    : Influence of inflammation-based prognostic score on mortality of patients undergoing chemotherapy for far advanced or recurrent unresectable colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 250(2): 268-272, 2009. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b16e24
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hayama T,
    2. Ozawa T,
    3. Asako K,
    4. Kondo R,
    5. Ono K,
    6. Okada Y,
    7. Tsukamoto M,
    8. Fukushima Y,
    9. Shimada R,
    10. Nozawa K,
    11. Matsuda K,
    12. Fujii S,
    13. Fukagawa T,
    14. Hashiguchi Y
    : Impact of colon cancer location on the prognostic significance of nutritional indexes and inflammatory markers. In Vivo 35(2): 1261-1269, 2021. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12377
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Hayama T,
    2. Ozawa T,
    3. Tsukamoto M,
    4. Fukushima Y,
    5. Shimada R,
    6. Nozawa K,
    7. Matsuda K,
    8. Fujii S,
    9. Fukagawa T,
    10. Hashiguchi Y
    : Predicting overall survival using preoperative nutritional and inflammation status for colorectal cancer. In Vivo 36(1): 450-457, 2022. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12724
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Shibutani M,
    2. Maeda K,
    3. Nagahara H,
    4. Iseki Y,
    5. Ikeya T,
    6. Hirakawa K
    : Prognostic significance of the preoperative ratio of C-reactive protein to albumin in patients with colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 36(3): 995-1001, 2016.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Iseki Y,
    2. Shibutani M,
    3. Maeda K,
    4. Nagahara H,
    5. Fukuoka T,
    6. Matsutani S,
    7. Kashiwagi S,
    8. Tanaka H,
    9. Hirakawa K,
    10. Ohira M
    : A new method for evaluating tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in colorectal cancer using hematoxylin and eosin (H-E)-stained tumor sections. PLoS One 13(4): e0192744, 2018. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192744
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Iseki Y,
    2. Shibutani M,
    3. Maeda K,
    4. Nagahara H,
    5. Tamura T,
    6. Ohira G,
    7. Yamazoe S,
    8. Kimura K,
    9. Toyokawa T,
    10. Amano R,
    11. Tanaka H,
    12. Muguruma K,
    13. Hirakawa K,
    14. Ohira M
    : The impact of the preoperative peripheral lymphocyte count and lymphocyte percentage in patients with colorectal cancer. Surg Today 47(6): 743-754, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-016-1433-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Shibutani M,
    2. Kashiwagi S,
    3. Fukuoka T,
    4. Iseki Y,
    5. Kasashima H,
    6. Maeda K
    : Significance of the prognostic immune and nutritional index in patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer. Cancer Diagn Progn 3(3): 354-359, 2023. DOI: 10.21873/cdp.10223
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Shibutani M,
    2. Kashiwagi S,
    3. Fukuoka T,
    4. Iseki Y,
    5. Kasashima H,
    6. Maeda K
    : Impact of preoperative nutritional status on long-term survival in patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer. In Vivo 37(4): 1765-1774, 2023. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13265
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Xie H,
    2. Ruan G,
    3. Wei L,
    4. Zhang H,
    5. Zhang Q,
    6. Ge Y,
    7. Lin S,
    8. Song M,
    9. Zhang X,
    10. Liu X,
    11. Zhang X,
    12. Li X,
    13. Zhang K,
    14. Yang M,
    15. Tang M,
    16. Deng L,
    17. Shi H
    : A novel inflammation-nutrition biomarker score for predicting prognosis of patients with cancer: results from a multicenter study. BMC Cancer 22(1): 1311, 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10399-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Balkwill F,
    2. Mantovani A
    : Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? Lancet 357(9255): 539-545, 2001. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04046-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Xiong S,
    2. Dong L,
    3. Cheng L
    : Neutrophils in cancer carcinogenesis and metastasis. J Hematol Oncol 14(1): 173, 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s13045-021-01187-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Kitayama J,
    2. Yasuda K,
    3. Kawai K,
    4. Sunami E,
    5. Nagawa H
    : Circulating lymphocyte is an important determinant of the effectiveness of preoperative radiotherapy in advanced rectal cancer. BMC Cancer 11: 64, 2011. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-64
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Shibutani M,
    2. Nagahara H,
    3. Fukuoka T,
    4. Iseki Y,
    5. Matsutani S,
    6. Wang EN,
    7. Maeda K,
    8. Hirakawa K,
    9. Ohira M
    : Prognostic significance of the C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with trifluridine/thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor as later-line chemotherapy. Anticancer Res 39(2): 1051-1057, 2019. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13212
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. McMillan DC,
    2. Watson WS,
    3. O’Gorman P,
    4. Preston T,
    5. Scott HR,
    6. McArdle CS
    : Albumin concentrations are primarily determined by the body cell mass and the systemic inflammatory response in cancer patients with weight loss. Nutr Cancer 39(2): 210-213, 2001. DOI: 10.1207/S15327914nc392_8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Evans DC,
    2. Corkins MR,
    3. Malone A,
    4. Miller S,
    5. Mogensen KM,
    6. Guenter P,
    7. Jensen GL, ASPEN Malnutrition Committee
    : The use of visceral proteins as nutrition markers: an ASPEN position paper. Nutr Clin Pract 36(1): 22-28, 2021. DOI: 10.1002/ncp.10588
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Tokunaga R,
    2. Sakamoto Y,
    3. Nakagawa S,
    4. Miyamoto Y,
    5. Yoshida N,
    6. Oki E,
    7. Watanabe M,
    8. Baba H
    : Prognostic Nutritional Index predicts severe complications, recurrence, and poor prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing primary tumor resection. Dis Colon Rectum 58(11): 1048-1057, 2015. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000458
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Ikeya T,
    2. Shibutani M,
    3. Maeda K,
    4. Sugano K,
    5. Nagahara H,
    6. Ohtani H,
    7. Hirakawa K
    : Maintenance of the nutritional prognostic index predicts survival in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 141(2): 307-313, 2015. DOI: 10.1007/s00432-014-1799-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Chandra RK
    : Numerical and functional deficiency in T helper cells in protein energy malnutrition. Clin Exp Immunol 51(1): 126-132, 1983.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Almasaudi AS,
    2. Dolan RD,
    3. Edwards CA,
    4. McMillan DC
    : Hypoalbuminemia reflects nutritional risk, body composition and systemic inflammation and is independently associated with survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Cancers (Basel) 12(7): 1986, 2020. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12071986
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Shibutani M,
    2. Maeda K,
    3. Nagahara H,
    4. Fukuoka T,
    5. Matsutani S,
    6. Kimura K,
    7. Amano R,
    8. Hirakawa K,
    9. Ohira M
    : The prognostic significance of the advanced lung cancer inflammation index in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective study. BMC Cancer 19(1): 241, 2019. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5468-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Horino T,
    2. Tokunaga R,
    3. Miyamoto Y,
    4. Hiyoshi Y,
    5. Akiyama T,
    6. Daitoku N,
    7. Sakamoto Y,
    8. Yoshida N,
    9. Baba H
    : The advanced lung cancer inflammation index is a novel independent prognosticator in colorectal cancer patients after curative resection. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 6(1): 83-91, 2021. DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12499
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Yan XL,
    2. Wu LM,
    3. Tang XB,
    4. Li ZZ,
    5. Zhang Z,
    6. Jiang HJ,
    7. Chen ZT,
    8. Chen DH,
    9. Li JY,
    10. Shen X,
    11. Huang DD
    : Comparison of the cachexia index based on hand-grip strength (H-CXI) with the original CXI for the prediction of cancer cachexia and prognosis in patients who underwent radical colectomy for colorectal cancer. Front Nutr 11: 1290299, 2024. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1290299
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Labianca R,
    2. Nordlinger B,
    3. Beretta GD,
    4. Mosconi S,
    5. Mandalà M,
    6. Cervantes A,
    7. Arnold D, ESMO Guidelines Working Group
    : Early colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 24: vi64-vi72, 2013. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt354
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Benson AB 3rd.,
    2. Schrag D,
    3. Somerfield MR,
    4. Cohen AM,
    5. Figueredo AT,
    6. Flynn PJ,
    7. Krzyzanowska MK,
    8. Maroun J,
    9. McAllister P,
    10. Van Cutsem E,
    11. Brouwers M,
    12. Charette M,
    13. Haller DG
    : American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 22(16): 3408-3419, 2004. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.063
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Sadahiro S,
    2. Sakamoto K,
    3. Tsuchiya T,
    4. Takahashi T,
    5. Ohge H,
    6. Sato T,
    7. Kondo K,
    8. Ogata Y,
    9. Baba H,
    10. Itabashi M,
    11. Ikeda M,
    12. Hamada M,
    13. Maeda K,
    14. Masuko H,
    15. Takahashi K,
    16. Sakamoto J,
    17. Kusano M,
    18. Hyodo I,
    19. Taguri M,
    20. Morita S
    : Prospective observational study of the efficacy of oral uracil and tegafur plus leucovorin for stage II colon cancer with risk factors for recurrence using propensity score matching (JFMC46-1201). BMC Cancer 22(1): 170, 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09267-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Reprints and Permissions
Prognostic Significance of Innovative Inflammation-nutrition Biomarker Score in Patients With Colorectal Cancer
MASATSUNE SHIBUTANI, SHINICHIRO KASHIWAGI, HIDEKI TANDA, YUKI SEKI, KOJI TAKADA, HIROAKI KASASHIMA, TATSUNARI FUKUOKA, KIYOSHI MAEDA
Anticancer Research Dec 2024, 44 (12) 5559-5567; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.17382
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords