Background: Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score was used for screening the preoperative nutritional status. The correlation between the CONUT score and the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) has yet to be elucidated. Herein, we analyzed the prognostic value of CONUT scores in patients with PCa who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Materials and methods: Data of 244 patients were retrospectively evaluated. Perioperative variables and follow-up data were analyzed. The patients were categorized into 2 groups according to their preoperative CONUT scores. Postoperative complication and incontinence rates were also compared. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) between the 2 groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify the potential prognostic factors for BCRFS.
Results: Patients were categorized into the low-CONUT group (CONUT score <3, n = 207) and high-CONUT group (CONUT score ≥3, n = 37). The high-CONUT group had a higher overall complication rate (40.5% vs.19.3%, p = 0.004), a higher major complication rate (10.8% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.013), and longer postoperative length of stay (8 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.017). More fever, urinary infection, abdominal infection, scrotal edema, rash, and hemorrhagic events (all p values < 0.05) were observed in the high-CONUT group. A higher rate of urinary incontinence was observed in the high-CONUT group at 1 (34.4% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.030) and 3 months (24.1% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.023) postoperatively. The high-CONUT group had shorter medium BCRFS (23.8 months vs. 54.6 months, p = 0.029), and a CONUT score ≥3 was an independent risk factor for a shorter BCRFS (hazards ratio, 1.842; p = 0.026).
Conclusions: The CONUT score is a useful predictive tool for higher postoperative complication rates and shorter BCRFS in patients with PCa who undergo laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Acknowledgments
None.
Statement of ethics
Our study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013) and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University (No. 2022-Ke-55), which waived the requirement for informed consent for this retrospective analysis.
Conflict of interest statement
YN is an editorial board member of Current Urology. This article was accepted after a normal external review. No conflict of interest has been declared by the other authors.
Funding source
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 82170783).
Author contributions
TX: Made a substantial contribution to the design of the study and was the major contributor in writing the manuscript; XY, GZ: Collected data; FC, YC, LS, MW, WW, NX: Contributed to the study design; YN: Designed the study and revised the manuscript; All the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
| [1] |
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015; 136(5):E359-E386.
|
| [2] |
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 2022; 72(1):7-33.
|
| [3] |
Shastri AA, Lombardo J, Okere SC, et al. Personalized nutrition as a key contributor to improving radiation response in breast cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 23(1):175.
|
| [4] |
Gliwska E, Guzek D, Przekop Z, Sobocki J, Głąbska D. Quality of life of cancer patients receiving enteral nutrition: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nutrients 2021; 13(12):4551.
|
| [5] |
Carr RA, Harrington C, Stella C, et al. Early implementation of a perioperative nutrition support pathway for patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Cancer Med 2022; 11(3):592-601.
|
| [6] |
Ignacio de Ulíbarri J, González-Madroño A, de Villar NG, et al. CONUT: A tool for Controlling Nutritional Status. First validation in a hospital population. Nutr Hosp 2005; 20(1):38-45.
|
| [7] |
Iseki Y, Shibutani M, Maeda K, et al. Impact of the preoperative Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score on the survival after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. PloS One 2015; 10(7):e0132488.
|
| [8] |
Akamine T, Toyokawa G, Matsubara T, et al. Significance of the preoperative CONUT score in predicting postoperative disease-free and overall survival in patients with lung adenocarcinoma with obstructive lung disease. Anticancer Res 2017; 37(5):2735-2742.
|
| [9] |
Toyokawa T, Kubo N, Tamura T, et al. The pretreatment Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is an independent prognostic factor in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Results from a retrospective study. BMC Cancer 2016; 16(1):722.
|
| [10] |
Zhang W, Wu Y, Zhang Z, et al. Controlling Nutritional Status score: A new prognostic indicator for patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer. Curr Probl Cancer 2019; 43(5):461-470.
|
| [11] |
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250(2):187-196.
|
| [12] |
Leitch EF, Chakrabarti M, Crozier JE, et al. Comparison of the prognostic value of selected markers of the systemic inflammatory response in patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2007; 97(9):1266-1270.
|
| [13] |
McMillan DC, Elahi MM, Sattar N, Angerson WJ, Johnstone J, McArdle CS. Measurement of the systemic inflammatory response predicts cancer-specific and non-cancer survival in patients with cancer. Nutr Cancer 2001; 41(1-2):64-69.
|
| [14] |
Ayhan A, Günakan E, Alyazıcı İ, Haberal N, Altundağ Ö, Dursun P. The preoperative albumin level is an independent prognostic factor for optimally debulked epithelial ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296(5):989-995.
|
| [15] |
Li CC, Chang TH, Wu WJ, et al. Significant predictive factors for prognosis of primary upper urinary tract cancer after radical nephroureterectomy in Taiwanese patients. Eur Urol 2008; 54(5):1127-1134.
|
| [16] |
Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, Balkwill F. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 2008; 454(7203):436-444.
|
| [17] |
Ray-Coquard I, Cropet C, Van Glabbeke M, et al. Lymphopenia as a prognostic factor for overall survival in advanced carcinomas, sarcomas, and lymphomas. Cancer Res 2009; 69(13):5383-5391.
|
| [18] |
Cengiz O, Kocer B, Sürmeli S, Santicky MJ, Soran A. Are pretreatment serum albumin and cholesterol levels prognostic tools in patients with colorectal carcinoma? Med Sci Monit 2006; 12(6):CR240-CR247.
|
| [19] |
de Martino M, Leitner CV, Seemann C, et al. Preoperative serum cholesterol is an independent prognostic factor for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). BJU Int 2015; 115(3):397-404.
|
| [20] |
Yang W, Bai Y, Xiong Y, et al. Potentiating the antitumour response of CD8(+) T cells by modulating cholesterol metabolism. Nature 2016; 531(7596):651-655.
|
| [21] |
Elghiaty A, Kim J, Jang WS, et al. Preoperative Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score as a novel immune-nutritional predictor of survival in non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma of ≤ 7 cm on preoperative imaging. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2019; 145(4):957-965.
|
| [22] |
Ishihara H, Kondo T, Yoshida K, et al. Preoperative Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score as a novel predictive biomarker of survival in patients with localized urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract treated with radical nephroureterectomy. Urol Oncol 2017; 35(9):539.e9-539.e16.
|
| [23] |
Huang J, Zhao L, Wang K, et al. Controlling Nutritional Status score evaluates prognosis in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Cancer Control 2021;28:10732748211021078.
|
| [24] |
Nemoto Y, Kondo T, Ishihara H, et al. The Controlling Nutritional Status CONUT score in patients with advanced bladder cancer after radical cystectomy. In Vivo 2021; 35(2):999-1006.
|
| [25] |
Paccagnella A, Morassutti I, Rosti G. Nutritional intervention for improving treatment tolerance in cancer patients. Curr Opin Oncol 2011; 23(4):322-330.
|
| [26] |
Di Minno A, Aveta A, Gelzo M, et al. 8-Hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine and 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α: Putative biomarkers to assess oxidative stress damage following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). J Clin Med 2022; 11(20):6102.
|
PDF
(209KB)
