首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Cancer Science >Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study
【2h】

Prognostic value of nutritional risk screening 2002 scale in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A large‐scale cohort study

机译:营养风险筛查2002年规模对鼻咽癌的预后价值:一项大规模队列研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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 style="fixed-case">LRRFS ( style="fixed-case">AUC = 0.529 vs 0.542 vs 0.564; P < .05 except scale A vs B). Our proposed style="fixed-case">NRS2002 scale represents a simple, clinically useful tool for nutritional risk screening in style="fixed-case">NPC.
机译:关于鼻咽癌(NPC)的营养风险筛查2002(NRS2002)量表的价值知之甚少。为了解决这个问题,我们进行了大规模研究。我们在我们的中心采用了大数据情报数据库平台,确定了2009年至2013年之间接受治疗的3232名患者。在3232名(24 986名)中有12.9%的合格患者中,有469名(14.5%),13名(0.4%),953名( 29.5%),1762(54.5%)和35(1.1%)的NRS2002分数分别为1,2、3、4和5。 NRS2002 <3和≥3(原始量表)的患者的生存结局相当。但是,NRS2002≤3vs> 3(重组量表)的患者5年无病生存率(DFS; 82.7%vs 75.0%,P > / strong> .001),总生存率(OS) ; 88.8%vs 84.1%,P = .001),远处无转移生存率(DMFS; 90.2%vs 85.9%,P = .001)和局部无复发生存率(LRRFS; 91.6%vs 87.2%,P =。 001)。因此,我们提出了修订后的NRS2002量表,发现与预测DFS的原始量表或重组量表相比,它提供了更好的风险分层(曲线下面积[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)和 style =“ fixed-case”> LRRFS ( style = “固定情况“> AUC = 0.529 vs 0.542 vs 0.564; P <.05,A和B除外)。我们提出的 style =“ fixed-case”> NRS 2002量表代表了一种简单的,临床上有用的工具,用于 style =“ fixed-case”> NPC 中的营养风险筛查。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号