Data from World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research Screener Algorithm Versus Standard Score: Association with Mortality in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background: To enable fast and individual assessment of adherence to World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) Cancer Prevention Recommendations, the WCRF/AICR Screener (hereafter Screener) was developed and validated. Although the recommendations are grounded in strong epidemiologic evidence, this study evaluated the external applicability of the Screener, including its association with all-cause mortality, variable contribution, and prognostic performance compared with the standard 2018 WCRF/AICR Score (hereafter Score). Methods: We analyzed 1919 patients with newly diagnosed stages I–IV colorectal cancer from the prospective Dutch COLON study. Adherence to the recommendations was assessed at diagnosis using the algorithm from the Screener and, for comparison, the Score. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards models estimated HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for mortality per 1-SD increase and across quartiles. Models were adjusted for potential confounders. Leave-one-out analysis evaluated individual variable contribution. Results: A total of 533 deaths occurred during a median follow-up of 8.3 years. Greater adherence (highest vs. lowest quartile) to the Screener was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.93). Comparable associations were observed for the Score (HR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.64–1.05). Conclusions: The Screener showed comparable performance and external applicability to the Score in relation to all-cause mortality among patients with colorectal cancer. Impact: The Screener may facilitate brief and practical lifestyle assessment in clinical and research settings, supporting risk stratification and integration of lifestyle evaluation into survivorship care.

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