期刊文献+

控制营养状况评分对雄激素剥夺治疗前列腺癌患者预后的预测价值

Predictive value of controlling nutritional status score on the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer after androgen deprivation therapy
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的探讨控制营养状况(CONUT)评分对雄激素剥夺治疗前列腺癌患者预后的预测价值,为临床预测治疗效果提供参考依据。方法回顾性分析2018年2月至2020年3月南通市肿瘤医院收治的雄激素剥夺治疗的98例前列腺癌患者的临床资料,均完成2年随访,根据患者CONUT评分分为CONUT评分≥3分组(53例)和CONUT评分<3分组(45例)。分析两组患者一般资料的差异,不同CONUT评分前列腺癌患者生存率,影响前列腺癌患者雄激素剥夺治疗预后的单因素,并对其中差异有统计学意义的因素进行多变量Cox回归分析,筛选出影响前列腺癌患者雄激素剥夺治疗预后的独立危险因素。结果CONUT评分≥3分组TNM分期Ⅲ~Ⅳ期、前列腺癌格利森评分系统(Gleason)评分>7分、淋巴结转移、肿瘤切缘阳性的患者占比均显著高于CONUT评分<3分组;前列腺癌患者雄激素剥夺治疗后随访2年生存情况,共有66例(67.35%)患者存活,其中CONUT评分≥3分组生存率为54.72%(29/53),CONUT评分<3分组生存率为82.22%(37/45),CONUT评分<3分组患者2年生存率显著高于CONUT评分≥3分组(均P<0.05);TNM分期、Gleason评分、淋巴结转移、CONUT评分、肿瘤切缘阳性均为前列腺癌雄激素剥夺治疗患者预后的危险因素(HR值=2.237、2.309、2.125、2.784、1.958,均P<0.05);多变量Cox回归分析显示,TNM分期Ⅲ~Ⅳ期、CONUT评分≥3分、Gleason评分>7分均是前列腺癌患者雄激素剥夺治疗预后的独立危险因素(HR值=1.917、3.370、2.020,均P<0.05)。结论CONUT评分与前列腺癌患者预后密切相关,对于预测前列腺癌患者雄激素剥夺治疗预后具有重要的指导价值,CONUT评分≥3分提示患者有预后不良风险。 Objective To explore controlling nutritional status(CONUT)score on the predictive value for prognosis of patients with prostate cancer after androgen deprivation therapy,and provide reference for the clinical prediction of treatment effect.Methods The clinical data of 98 patients with prostate cancer who treated with androgen deprivation in Nantong Tumor Hospital from February 2018 to March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed,they were all followed-up for 2 years,and were divided into the CONUT score≥3 group(53 cases)and the CONUT score<3 group(45 cases)according to the patients'CONUT score.The differences of general data between the two groups,the survival rates of patients with prostate cancer with different CONUT scores,the single factors affecting the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer after androgen deprivation therapy were analyzed,and the multivariate Cox regression analysis for the factors with statistically significant differences was conducted to screen out the independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer after androgen deprivation therapy.Results The proportion of patients with TNM stage Ⅲ~Ⅳ,Gleason score>7,lymph node metastasis and positive tumor resection margin in the CONUT score≥3 group were significantly higher than those in the CONUT score<3 group;after 2 years of follow-up,66 patients(67.35%)survived,the survival rate was 54.72%(29/53)in the CONUT score≥3 group,and the survival rate was 82.22%(37/45)in the CONUT score<3 group,the 2-year survival rate of patients in CONUT score<3 group was significantly higher than that in CONUT score≥3 group(all P<0.05);TNM stage,Gleason score,lymph node metastasis,CONUT score and positive tumor resection margin were risk factors for the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer after androgen deprivation therapy(HR=2.237,2.309,2.125,2.784,1.958,all P<0.05);multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that TNM stage Ⅲ~Ⅳ,CONUT score≥3,Gleason score>7 were independent risk factors for the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer after androgen deprivation therapy(HR=1.917,3.370,2.020,all P<0.05).Conclusion CONUT score is closely related to the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer after androgen deprivation therapy,and which has important guiding value for predicting the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer after androgen deprivation therapy.the CONUT score≥3 indicates that patients have a risk of poor prognosis.
作者 陈志刚 郭海锋 徐海飞 王小林 CHEN Zhigang;GUO Haifeng;XU Haifei;WANG Xiaolin(Department of Urology Surgery,Nantong Tumor Hospital,Nantong,Jiangsu 226006,China)
出处 《现代医学与健康研究电子杂志》 2022年第21期34-38,共5页 Modern Medicine and Health Research
关键词 前列腺癌 雄激素剥夺治疗 控制营养状况评分 预后 预测价值 Prostate cancer Androgen deprivation therapy Controlling nutritional status Prognosis Predictive value
  • 相关文献

参考文献19

二级参考文献136

  • 1李亚玲,王耕,王明华,冯晓敏.乳腺癌病人癌因性疲乏的系统化护理干预[J].中华护理杂志,2005,40(5):335-338. 被引量:131
  • 2华立新,吴宏飞,眭元庚,徐正铨,张炜,钱立新,殷长军,居小兵,张杰秀.药物去势和手术去势对前列腺癌患者性激素的影响[J].中华泌尿外科杂志,2005,26(12):812-815. 被引量:12
  • 3余凯远,翁志梁,王思齐,余志贤,陈伟,吴秀玲,李澄棣.间歇性与持续性雄激素阻断治疗晚期前列腺癌疗效比较[J].中华泌尿外科杂志,2006,27(11):761-764. 被引量:31
  • 4丛树东,吴光兴,卢军.中晚期前列腺癌综合治疗及预后分析[J].中华肿瘤防治杂志,2006,13(22):1760-1760. 被引量:4
  • 5Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: Data based on the modified Gleason scoring sys- tem. BJU Int, 2013, 111(5) : 753-760.
  • 6McKenney JK, Simko J, Bonham M, et al. The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage pros- tate cancer managed by active surveillance: A multi-institutional study. J Urol, 2011, 186(2) : 465-469.
  • 7Rodriguez-Urrego PA, Cronin AM, A1-Ahmadie HA, et al. In- terobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies. Hum Pathol, 2011, 42(1) : 68-74.
  • 8Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, et al. Standardization of Glea- son grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology, 2013, 62(2) : 247-256.
  • 9Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 Inter- national Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Con- ference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol, 2005, 29(9) : 1228-1242.
  • 10Bori R, Salamon F, M6cz6r C, et al. Interobserver reproducibili- ty of Gleason grading in prostate biopsy samples. Orv Hetil, 2013, 154(31): 1219-1225.

共引文献187

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部