Dataset Information

Prognostic model based on the geriatric nutritional risk index and sarcopenia in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Systemic inflammation and cachexia are associated with adverse clinical outcomes in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is one of the main parameters used to assess these conditions, but its efficacy in DLBCL is inconclusive.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 228 DLBCL patients who were treated with R-CHOP immunochemotherapy (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). The patients were stratified according to GNRI score (> 98, 92 to 98, 82 to < 92, and < 82) as defined in previous studies. Additionally, the extent of sarcopenia was categorized as sarcopenia-both, sarcopenia-L3/PM alone, and non-sarcopenia-both according to skeletal muscle index.

Results

Survival curves plotted against a combination of GNRI and sarcopenia scores revealed two clear groups as follows: high cachexia risk (HCR) group (GNRI < 82, sarcopenia-both, or GNRI 82-92 with sarcopenia-L3/PM alone) and low cachexia risk (LCR) group (others). The HCR group had a lower complete response rate (46.5% vs. 86.6%) and higher frequency of treatment-related mortality (19.7% vs. 3.8%) and early treatment discontinuation (43.7% vs. 8.3%) compared with the LCR group. The median progression-free survival (PFS) (not reached vs. 10.3 months, p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (not reached vs. 12.9 months, p < 0.001) were much shorter in the HCR group than in the LCR group. On multivariable analyses, the HCR group was shown to be an independent negative prognostic factor for PFS and OS after adjusting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI).

Conclusions

A combined model of GNRI and sarcopenia may provide prognostic information independently of the NCCN-IPI in DLBCL.

SUBMITTER: Go SI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7236094 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveStandard modalities recommended for sarcopenia diagnosis may be unavailable in primary care settings. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare associations of some better popularized nutritional risk-related indexes with sarcopenia presence and their value in sarcopenia diagnosis in community-dwelling middle-aged and elderly adults, including geriatric nutrition risk index (GNRI), albumin (ALB), calf circumference (CC), mid-arm circumference (MAC), triceps skinfold thickness (TST) and body mass index (BMI).MethodsBased on the West China Health and Aging Trend study, the current study included participants aged 50 or older who were recruited in 2018. Sarcopenia-related assessment and diagnosis were in line with Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019. For each single index, we assessed its association with sarcopenia presence by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis; we also computed diagnostic measures including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and sensitivity, specificity, accuracy at the optimal cut-off value determined according to Youden's index.ResultsA total of 3829 subjects were included, consisting of 516 and 3313 subjects in the sarcopenia and non-sarcopenia groups, respectively. Regarding the risk for sarcopenia presence, the fully adjusted odds ratios of GNRI, ALB, CC, MAC, TST and BMI per standard deviation decrease were 2.95 (95% CI 2.51-3.47, P < 0.001), 1.01 (95% CI 0.90-1.15, P = 0.816), 4.56 (95% CI 3.82-5.44, P < 0.001), 4.24 (95% CI 3.56-5.05, P < 0.001), 1.67 (95% CI 1.92-1.45, P < 0.001) and 4.09 (95% CI 3.41-4.91, P < 0.001), respectively. Regarding the value in sarcopenia diagnosis in the entire study population, their AUCs could be ordered as MAC (0.85, 95% CI 0.83-0.86) > GNRI (0.80, 95% CI 0.78-0.82), CC (0.83, 95% CI 0.81-0.85), BMI (0.81, 95% CI 0.79-0.83) > TST (0.72, 95% CI 0.70-0.74) > ALB (0.62, 95% CI 0.60-0.65). At the relevant optimal cut-off values, the sensitivity was the highest for CC (0.83, 95% CI 0.80-0.87) and MAC (0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84), while GNRI showed the highest specificity (0.79, 95% CI 0.78-0.81) and accuracy (0.78, 95% 0.76-0.79).ConclusionOverall diagnostic performance was the best for MAC, followed by GNRI, CC, BMI, and the worst for TST, ALB in distinguishing sarcopenia from non-sarcopenia in middle-aged and elderly adults in community-based settings. CC or MAC might do better in reducing missed diagnosis, while GNRI was superior in reducing misdiagnosis.