Prognostic nutritional index (PNI) correlates with survival in head and neck cancer patients more precisely than other nutritional markers – real world data

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: The survival benefit with higher body mass index (BMI) of patients suffering from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is documented as BMI paradox. As the early re-nourishment of high-risk patients determine survival, we searched for a nutritional status marker suitable for everyday screening. Grouping patients based on the 8th Edition of TNM Classification, we investigated for the first time the candidate nutritional status markers among TNM8 subgroups, including the newly introduced p16 positive oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study enrolling 661 patients and collecting anthropometric indices, laboratory parameters, clinical scores, nutritional risk scores. To discover the best one for screening survival analyses and correlation tests were executed. RESULTS: By performing univariate Cox regression, we found three nutritional markers significantly correlating with overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS): BMI at diagnosis, percent of weight loss over six months and prognostic nutritional index (PNI). The latter proved to be independent of tumor stage. p16 negative OPSCC patient's OS and CSS did not correlate with BMI, but it did correlate with PNI and percent of weight loss. BMI was the only marker correlating with OS, only in stage 4 hypopharyngeal cancer patients. All three markers significantly correlated with survival among p16 positive oropharyngeal and glottic cancer patients. CONCLUSION: We found BMI, percent of weight loss and PNI good candidate markers for malnutrition. PNI proved to be superior in every aspect, enabling the treating physicians to discover high-risk patients in need of aggressive re-nourishment. The survival of supraglottic laryngeal squamous cancer patients seemed to be independent of these nutritional status markers, which observation should be a subject of further investigations.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.