Advertisement

Esophagus

pp 1–8 | Cite as

The impact of geriatric nutritional risk index on surgical outcomes after esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer

  • Naoshi Kubo
  • Katsunobu Sakurai
  • Tatsuro Tamura
  • Takahiro Toyokawa
  • Hiroaki Tanaka
  • Kazuya Muguruma
  • Masakazu Yashiro
  • Masaichi Ohira
Original Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Geriatric Nutritional Index (GNRI) was shown to be closely associated with nutrition-related complications and mortality in elderly hospitalized patients. Impact of GNRI on postoperative outcomes in surgically treated esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients has not been evaluated extensively.

Methods

A total of 240 patients with ESCC who underwent radical esophagectomy with two- or three-field lymphadenectomy between April 2000 and April 2012 were included in this retrospective study. GNRI formula was as follows: 1.489 × albumin (g/dl) + 41.7 × current weight/ideal weight. Patients were categorized as GNRI-low (GNRI < 92) or GNRI-high (GNRI ≥ 92) according to the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves generated for multiple logistic regression analysis using 5-year overall survival as the end point. The impact of GNRI status on short- and long-term outcomes of curative surgery for ESCC was examined.

Results

There were 44 (18.3%) and 196 (82.7%) patients in the GNRI-low and GNRI-high groups, respectively. Among the investigated demographic factors, the rate of nodal metastasis and pathological stage were significantly higher in the GNRI-low group than in the GNRI-high group (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). Univariate analysis of postoperative complications revealed that the rate of lung complications was significantly higher in the GNRI-low group than in the GNRI-high group (p = 0.024), while GNRI was not an independent risk factor for the development of lung complications by multivariate analysis (Odds Ratio: 1.746; p = 0.126). 5-year overall survival (OS) was significantly lower in the GNRI-low group than in the GNRI-high group (p < 0.01). Moreover, GNRI was an independent prognostic factor for OS [Hazard ratio: 1.687; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.038–2.742; p = 0.035], but not for cancer-specific survival. Analysis with stratification by tumor stage revealed that both OS and Cancer-Specific Survival (CSS) were worse in patients with low GNRI than those with high GNRI only among those with stage III ESCC (34.4% vs. 52.1%, p = 0.049 and 36.1% vs. 57.2%, p = 0.041, respectively). In the stage III ESCC, primary tumor size tends to be greater in the GNRI-low group than in the GNRI-high group (5.69 vs. 4.75 cm, p = 0.085) and the incidence of preoperative dysphagia was significantly higher in the GNRI-low group than in the GNRI-high group (74% vs. 45.9%, p = 0.032).

Conclusion

GNRI was closely associated with long-term survival after curative surgery in patients with stage III ESCC. Intensive follow-up after surgery should be performed for ESCC patients with low GNRI.

Keywords

Geriatric Nutritional Index Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical Statement

This was a retrospective study approved by the review board of Osaka City University Hospital.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial or other interests with regard to the submitted manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center M, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ. Esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(23):2241–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, et al. Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet. 2013;381(9864):400–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ando N, Kato H, Igaki H, Shinoda M, Ozawa S, Shimizu H, et al. A randomized trial comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus preoperative chemotherapy for localized advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG9907). Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwegler I, von Holzen A, Gutzwiller JP, et al. Nutritional risk is a clinical predictor of postoperative mortality and morbidity in surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;97:92–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McClave SA, Snider HL, Spain DA. Preoperative issues in clinical nutrition. Chest. 1999;115:645–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goh SL, De Silva RP, Dhital K, et al. Is low serum albumin associated with postoperative complications in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal malignancies? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20:107–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watanabe M, Ishimoto T, Baba Y, et al. Prognostic impact of body mass index in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(12):3984–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mullen JT, Davenport DL, Hutter MM, et al. Impact of body mass index perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing major intra-abdominal cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;15(8):2164–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bouillanne O, Morineau G, Dupon C, et al. Geriatric Nutritional Index: a new index for evaluating at-risk elderly medical patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82:7777–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kubo N, Ohira M, Yamashita Y, et al. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position versus in the lateral position for patients with esophageal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech. 2014;24:158–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kubo N, Ohira M, Yamashita Y, et al. The impact of combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery on pulmonary complications after radical esophagectomy in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Anticancer Res. 2014;34:2399–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sobin LH, Gaspodarowicz M, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumors (UICC). 7th ed. New York: Wiley-Liss; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classifications of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Onodera T, Goseki N, Kosaki G. Prognostic nutritional index in gastrointestinal surgery of malnourished cancer patient. Nippon Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 1984;85(9):1001–5 (in Japanese with English Abstract).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Narumi T, Arimoto T, Funayama A, et al. Prognostic importance of objective nutritional indexes in patients with chronic heart failure. J Cardiol. 2013;62(5):307–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2013.05.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Panichi V, Cupisti A, Rosati A, et al. Geriatric nutritional risk index is a strong predictor of mortality in hemodialysis patients: data from the Riscavid cohort. J Nephrol. 2014;27(2):193–201.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-013-0033-0 Epub 2014 Jan 16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beberashvili I, Azar A, Sinuani I, et al. Geriatric nutritional risk index, muscle function, quality of life and clinical outcome in hemodialysis patients. Clin Nutr. 2016;35(6):1522–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2016.04.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shoji F, Matsubara T, Kozuma Y, et al. Preoperative Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index: a predictive and prognostic factor in patients with pathological stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Surg Oncol. 2017;26(4):483–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bo Y, Wang K, Liu Y, et al. The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index predicts survival in elderly esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with radiotherapy. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reynolds JV, Shou JA, Siqal R, et al. The influence of protein malnutrition on T cell, natural killer cell, and lymphokine-activated killer cell function, and on biological responsiveness to high-dose interleukin-2. Cell Immunol. 1990;128(2):569–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Good RA, West A, Day NK, et al. Effects of undernutrition of host cell and organ function. Cancer Res. 1982;42(2):737–46.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kubo N, Ohira M, Tamura T, et al. Prognostic significance of baseline nutritional index for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after radical esophagectomy. Esophagus. 2017;14:84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miyata H, Yano M, Yasuda T, et al. Randomized study of the clinical effects of ω-3fatty acid-containing enteral nutrition support during neoadjuvant chemotherapy on chemotherapy-related toxicity in patients with esophageal cancer. Nutrition. 2017;33:204–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yamana I, Takeno S, Shibata R, et al. Is the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index a significant predictor of postoperative complications in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy? Eur Surg Res. 2015;55(1–2):35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000376610.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Esophageal Society and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoshi Kubo
    • 1
  • Katsunobu Sakurai
    • 1
  • Tatsuro Tamura
    • 2
  • Takahiro Toyokawa
    • 2
  • Hiroaki Tanaka
    • 2
  • Kazuya Muguruma
    • 2
  • Masakazu Yashiro
    • 2
  • Masaichi Ohira
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryOsaka City General HospitalOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Surgical OncologyOsaka City University Graduate School of MedicineOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations