Preoperative low handgrip strength (HGS) with HGS asymmetry is associated with adverse outcomes among older adults with gastric cancer

Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index Combined with Calf Circumference Can be a Good Predictor of Prognosis in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastric or Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To explore the effect of combined hematological and physical measurement indicators on the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancer and to screen for the best prognostic indicators.

INTRODUCTION

Gastric and colorectal cancer is a widespread health concern worldwide and one of the major contributors to cancer-related death. The hematological and physical measurement indicators have been shown to associate with the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancer, respectively, but it is still unclear whether the combination of the two can reflect the prognosis more effectively.

METHODS

Thirteen hematological indicators and 5 physical measurement indicators were selected in this study, and the most promising ones were screened using LASSO regression. Then, the best prognostic indicators were selected by time-ROC curves. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the effects of hematological and physical measurement indicators on the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancers were evaluated by Cox proportional risk regression analysis. In addition, the relationship between hematological and physical measurement indicators on secondary outcomes, including length of stay, hospitalization costs, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and patients' subjective global assessment scores (PGSGA), was explored.

RESULTS

After initial screening, among the hematological indicators, the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) showed the highest mean area under the curve (AUC) values. Among body measures, calf circumference (CC) showed the highest mean AUC value. Further analyses showed that the combination of combined nutritional prognostic index (GNRI) and calf circumference (CC) (GNRI-CC) had the best performance in predicting the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancers. Low GNRI, low CC, and low GNRI-low CC increased the risk of death by 44%, 48%, and 104%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed the same trend. In addition, low GNRI-low CC increased the risk of malnutrition by 17%.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes that a combination of blood measures and body measures is essential to accurately assess the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for gastric or colorectal cancers. The GNRI-CC is a good prognostic indicator and can also assess the risk of possible malnutrition.

Adult Cervical Deformity Patients Have Higher Baseline Frailty, Disability, and Comorbidities Compared With Complex Adult Thoracolumbar Deformity Patients: A Comparative Cohort Study of 616 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter comparative cohort.

OBJECTIVE

Studies have shown markedly higher rates of complications and all-cause mortality following surgery for adult cervical deformity (ACD) compared with adult thoracolumbar deformity (ATLD), though the reasons for these differences remain unclear. Our objectives were to compare baseline frailty, disability, and comorbidities between ACD and complex ATLD patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

Two multicenter prospective adult spinal deformity registries were queried, one ATLD and one ACD. Baseline clinical and frailty measures were compared between the cohorts.

RESULTS

616 patients were identified (107 ACD and 509 ATLD). These groups had similar mean age (64.6 vs 60.8 years, respectively, P = .07). ACD patients were less likely to be women (51.9% vs 69.5%, P < .001) and had greater Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.5 vs .9, P < .001) and ASA grade (2.7 vs 2.4, P < .001). ACD patients had worse VR-12 Physical Component Score (PCS, 25.7 vs 29.9, P < .001) and PROMIS Physical Function Score (33.3 vs 35.3, P = .031). All frailty measures were significantly worse for ACD patients, including hand dynamometer (44.6 vs 55.6 lbs, P < .001), CSHA Clinical Frailty Score (CFS, 4.0 vs 3.2, P < .001), and Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS, 5.15 vs 3.21, P < .001). Greater proportions of ACD patients were frail (22.9% vs 5.7%) or vulnerable (15.6% vs 10.9%) based on EFS (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ATLD patients, ACD patients had worse baseline characteristics on all measures assessed (comorbidities/disability/frailty). These differences may help account for greater risk of complications and all-cause mortality previously observed in ACD patients and facilitate strategies for better preoperative optimization.