Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Low pretreatment prognostic nutritional index predicts poor survival in breast cancer patients: A meta-analysis

  • Guoming Hu ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    hgmplj@126.com (GH); shaoxinghlm@126.com (LH)

    Affiliations Department of General Surgery (Breast and Thyroid Surgery), Shaoxing People’s Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Intervention, Ministry of Education, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China, Shaoxing Key Laboratory of Functional Molecular Imaging of Tumor and Interventional Diagnosis and Treatment, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China

    ⨯
  • Qiannan Ding,

    Roles Formal analysis, Supervision

    Affiliation Medical Research Center, Shaoxing People’s Hospital; Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China

    ⨯
  • Kefang Zhong,

    Roles Formal analysis

    Affiliation Department of General Surgery (Breast and Thyroid Surgery), Shaoxing People’s Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China

    ⨯
  • Shimin Wang,

    Roles Formal analysis

    Affiliation Department of Nephrology, Shaoxing People’s Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China

    ⨯
  • Songxiang Wang,

    Roles Conceptualization

    Affiliation Department of General Surgery (Breast and Thyroid Surgery), Shaoxing People’s Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China

    ⨯
  • Liming Huang

    Roles Conceptualization

    hgmplj@126.com (GH); shaoxinghlm@126.com (LH)

    Affiliation Department of General Surgery (Breast and Thyroid Surgery), Shaoxing People’s Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

Prognostic nutritional index (PNI), as an indicator of nutritional immune status, has been shown to be associated with therapeutic effects and survival of solid tumors. However, the prognostic role of PNI before treatment in human breast cancer (BC) is still not conclusive. Hence, we performed this meta-analysis to assess the value of it in prognosis prediction for BC patients.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and EBSCO to identify the studies evaluating the association between PNI and survival such as overall survival (OS), disease–free survival (DFS) of BC, and computed extracted data into hazard ratios (HRs) for OS, DFS and clinicopathological features with STATA 12.0.

Results

A total of 2322 patients with BC from 8 published studies were incorporated into this meta-analysis. We discovered that low pretreatment PNI was significantly associated with worse OS, but not with DFS in BC patients. In stratified analyses, the result showed that decreased PNI before treatment was remarkably related with lower 3-year, 5-year, 8-year and 10-year OS, but not with 1-year survival rate in BC. In addition, although reduced PNI could not impact 1-year, 3-year or 5-year DFS, it considerably deteriorated 8-year and 10-year DFS in patients.

Conclusion

Low pretreatment PNI deteriorated OS, 8-year and 10-year DFS in BC patients, implicating that it is a valuable prognostic index and improving the nutritional immune status may offer a therapeutic strategy for these patients.

Citation: Hu G, Ding Q, Zhong K, Wang S, Wang S, Huang L (2023) Low pretreatment prognostic nutritional index predicts poor survival in breast cancer patients: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18(1): e0280669. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280669

Editor: Zubing Mei, Shuguang Hospital, CHINA

Received: October 7, 2021; Accepted: January 5, 2023; Published: January 20, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Hu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The funder (National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Number:82173080; Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, LY23H160002; High-level Talent Training Project in Health of Zhejiang Province) had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: PNI, prognostic nutritional index; BC, breast cancer; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease–free survival; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HR, hazard rations; OR, odds ratios; Cl, confidence interval; NR, not reported

Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) has surpassed lung cancer as the most common malignancy in the world [1]. Although progresses in early diagnosis and therapeutic strategies such as surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, endocrine, Her-2-targeted and anti-PD1/PD-L1 therapies et al have benefited these patients, the advances in prediction of prognosis remain disappointing. Apart from that age, tumor size, lymph node status, tumor differentiation, molecular type such as triple-negative et al and Ki-67 have been considered as traditional biomarkers which are associated with prognosis of BC, recent study has reported that host status including nutrition or inflammation could be regarded as a prognostic factor of BC [2]. In addition, nutritional immune status has been broadly investigated to risk-stratify cancer patients to improve treatment strategy and to predict clinical outcomes in diverse tumors including BC.

Prognostic nutritional index (PNI), a serum albumin-and peripheral blood lymphocyte-based nutritional parameter, was initially applied to appraise nutritional status in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery [3] and predict postoperative complications including intra-abdominal abscess, inflammation of the intestine and obstruction of the intestine. Currently, the PNI has been extended to the field of cancer as an indicator of nutritional immune status and has been shown to be remarkably related with therapeutic effects and clinical outcome of various solid tumors [4–7]. Recently, many researchers have investigated the value of PNI before treatment for BC patients in terms of prognostic prediction [8–10], however, their results were not consistent. A re-assessment is therefore warranted. Moreover, the potential of pretreatment PNI as a valid prognostic index and therapeutic strategy is necessary to be explored.

In this study, we carried out the meta-analysis to quantitatively summarize the association between pretreatment PNI and clinical outcomes such as OS and DFS in BC patients, and thereby provided more evidence on the clinical value of PNI as a prognostic index for BC.

Methods

Search strategy

This meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO platform (ID: CRD42022349726) (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and EBSCO for studies assessing the PNI before treatment and survival in BC patients from 1996 to August 31th 2021. The keywords adopted for search were (prognostic nutritional index [All Fields]) AND (breast [Title/Abstract] OR mammary [Title/Abstract]) AND (neoplasms [Title/Abstract] OR tumor [Title/Abstract] OR cancer [Title/Abstract] OR carcinoma [Title/Abstract]). A total of 535, 748, 612 and 1526 entries were identified in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and EBSCO respectively.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis were: studies must have (1) been published as original articles in English; (2) assessed human subjects with histopathologically diagnosed with BC; (3) provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or Kaplan–Meier curves of high and low PNI before treatment with OS or DFS.

The exclusion criteria were that studies have not been published as research articles including commentary, case report and letters to editors; Studies without sufficient data for hazard ratios (HRs) evaluation; We also excluded studies that detected PNI after treatment such as surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, endocrine and targeted therapy.

Endpoints

In this meta-analysis, we recorded OS as the primary endpoint; while DFS was regarded as the second endpoint. Individual studies defined cut-offs of PNI and classified BC patients into high- and low- groups.

Data extraction

Two authors (GM.H. and QN.D.) independently reviewed and extracted information including first author’s name, number of patients, median age, time of follow-up and cut-off value of high PNI. OS, DFS and clinicopathological data such as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and Her-2 status etc were extracted from the text or tables.

Quality assessment

Two independent authors applied Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [11] to appraise the quality of individual study, and achieved consensus for each item under the help of the third or more authors. Six or above that the study scored was considered as high quality.

Statistical analysis

Relevant data were combined into hazard ratios (HRs) for OS, DFS, and odds ratios (ORs) with STATA 12.0 respectively based on the random-effect model if statistical heterogeneity was great [12], otherwise, the fixed–effect model was adopted [13]. In addition, we employed sensitivity analysis, Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s test [14] to determine the impact of individual study on the overall result and potential publication bias respectively. All P values were two-sided and below 0.05 was regarded as statistical significance.

Results

Search results and description of studies

Flow chart diagram of study selection was shown in Fig 1. Eight studies with 2322 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis [3, 8–10, 15–18]. And all these studies were scored 6 or above after careful evaluation with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). (S1 and S2 Tables in S1 File) Four studies evaluated both OS and DFS outcomes; and two studies evaluated only OS, whereas two studies evaluated only DFS. PNI was calculated from pretreatment laboratory data in all these included studies. Characteristics of researches being appropriate for data integration were exhibited in Table 1 and S3 Table in S1 File.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow chart diagram of study selection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280669.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280669.t001

Meta-analyses

Overall survival (OS).

Six studies involving 2010 patients investigated the association between PNI and OS, and the meta-analysis indicated that low PNI before treatment remarkably decreased OS (HR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.52, P < 0.001) in patients with BC, with no heterogeneity being detected (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.659) (Fig 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Forest plots describing HR of the association between low baseline PNI and OS in breast cancer patients.

HR: hazard ratio; PNI, prognostic nutritional index; OS: overall survival.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280669.g002

In addition, in subgroup analyses according to the specific survival time, we noted that low pretreatment PNI was significantly associated with worse 3-year (OR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.53, P < 0.001), 5-year (OR = 3.18, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.03, P < 0.001), 8-year (OR = 2.74, 95% CI 1.54 to 4.86, P = 0.001) and 10-year (OR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.15 to 5.78, P = 0.021) OS, but not with 1-year survival rate (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.93, P = 0.353) (Fig 3).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Forest plots describing ORs of the association between low baseline PNI and OS at 1-year(A), 3-year(B), 5-year(C), 8-year(D) and 10-year(E) in breast cancer patients.

OR, odds ratios; PNI, prognostic nutritional index; OS, overall survival.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280669.g003

Disease–free survival (DFS).

As for the association between PNI and DFS, five studies have supplied the relevant data. In this study, we discovered that reduced pretreatment PNI could not markedly deteriorate DFS in BC patients (HR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.84, P = 0.605) (Fig 4).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Forest plots describing HRs of the association between decreased baseline PNI and DFS in breast cancer patients.

HR: hazard ratio; PNI, prognostic nutritional index; DFS, disease–free survival.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280669.g004

In subgroup analyses, as shown in Fig 5, poor PNI before treatment considerably decreased 8-year (OR = 2.46, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.49, P < 0.001) and 10-year (OR = 2.80, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.63, P = 0.004) DFS rather than 1-year (OR = 1.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 4.17, P = 0.120), 3-year (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.21, P = 0.664), or 5-year (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.50, P = 0.560) DFS in BC.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 5. Forest plots describing ORs of the association between reduced baseline PNI and DFS at 1-year (A), 3-year(B), 5-year(C), 8-year(D) and 10-year(E) in breast cancer patients.

OR, odds ratios; PNI, prognostic nutritional index; DFS, disease–free survival.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280669.g005

Clinicopathological features.

We next investigated whether PNI before treatment correlated with clinicopathological features, however, the results indicated that it was not significantly associated with ER (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.14, P = 0.355), PR (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.11, P = 0.279), or Her-2 (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.62, P = 0.501) status of patients (S1 Fig in S1 File).

Sensitivity analysis.

Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that each included research had no impact on the overall result for OS or DFS (S2 Fig in S1 File).

Publication bias.

Funnel plot and Egger’s test indicated that no significant publication bias existed between PNI and OS (P = 0.926) or DFS (P = 0.261) in patients (S3 Fig in S1 File).

Discussion

Nutritional immune status is closely related to antitumor response and survival of cancer patients [19]. PNI, an indicator which can reflect the nutritional immune status of patients, has proven to be associated with prognosis in multiple of solid tumors. However, the role of PNI in human BC still remains inconclusive. In this study, we unraveled the relationship between elevated pretreatment PNI and survival of human BC, and elaborated that it was significantly associated with better 3-year, 5-year, 8-year and 10-year OS, but not with 1-year survival rate in BC. In addition, it remarkably ameliorated 8-year and 10-year DFS, rather than 1-year, 3-year or 5-year DFS in patients. These findings suggested that high baseline PNI played an important role in hindering tumor progression and metastasis of BC.

Although the association between reduced PNI and worse survival of BC was probably complex and largely unknown, several potential mechanisms might be responsible for this. PNI was derived from the absolute albumin and absolute lymphocyte counts and combined both nutrition and systemic inflammation status. A low PNI suggests a reduction in serum albumin and /or lymphocytes, serving as surrogate biomarker. Serum albumin was an important nutritional indicator and Lower level of serum albumin was indicative of systemic responses that resulted in the loss of proteins [20, 21]. Serum albumin has been adopted to appraise disease severity, progression and been considered as an independent factor of poor prognosis in varieties of cancers including breast carcinoma [22].

Lymphocyte count from circulating blood has proven to be an important index in preventing tumor progression of cancers via activating host immune response. For example, CD8+T cells exerted an important role in immune surveillance and anti-tumor response through secreting multiples of cytokines such as perforin, granzyme B [23]. While CD4+T-helper cells could promote anti-tumor immunity via the release of cytokines including IFN-γ [24]. In addition, the reduction in level of lymphocytes in peripheral blood would lead to the decrease of these cells in infiltration of tumors, and weakened the response to cytotoxic treatment thereby lowering the survival of cancer [25–27]. Taken together, a decrease in albumin or lymphocyte count in the peripheral blood links to tumor initiation and progression. Thus, low PNI might confer advantages of survival and invasion by tumor cells and result in worse outcome.

The strengths of this study were that it included the application of systematic literature review as a methodology and eliminated the risk for miscounting study subjects; in addition, it also included increased power and improved estimates of effect size; and more importantly, it reached much reliable conclusions among included individual studies with conflicting results. However, there were some limitations in this meta-analysis. First, the cut-off value used for definition of high PNI in included Individual studies are not inconsistent. Second, significant heterogeneity observed across studies in pooled analysis of DFS can’t be completely accounted despite the use of random-effect models. Finally, studies with negative results might not be published, which could give rise to potential publication bias.

In conclusion, poor pretreatment PNI deteriorated OS, 8-year and 10-year DFS in BC patients, implicating that it is a valuable prognostic index and improving the nutritional immune status may offer a therapeutic strategy for these patients.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the members of the departments who helped in this study.

References

  1. 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2022, 72(1):7–33. pmid:35020204
  2. 2. Elinav E, Nowarski R, Thaiss CA, Hu B, Jin C, Flavell RA: Inflammation-induced cancer: crosstalk between tumours, immune cells and microorganisms. Nature reviews Cancer 2013, 13(11):759–771. pmid:24154716
  3. 3. Wang Y, Battseren B, Yin W, Lin Y, Zhou L, Yang F, et al. Predictive and prognostic value of prognostic nutritional index for locally advanced breast cancer. Gland Surg 2019, 8(6):618–626. pmid:32042668
  4. 4. Mohri Y, Inoue Y, Tanaka K, Hiro J, Uchida K, Kusunoki M: Prognostic Nutritional Index Predicts Postoperative Outcome in Colorectal Cancer. World journal of surgery 2013, 37(11):2688–2692. pmid:23884382
  5. 5. Nakatani M, Migita K, Matsumoto S, Wakatsuki K, Ito M, Nakade H, et al. Prognostic significance of the prognostic nutritional index in esophageal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Diseases of the Esophagus 2017, 30(8):1–7. pmid:28575242
  6. 6. Pinato DJ, North BV, Sharma R: A novel, externally validated inflammation-based prognostic algorithm in hepatocellular carcinoma: the prognostic nutritional index (PNI). British journal of cancer 2012, 106(8):1439–1445. pmid:22433965
  7. 7. Sun JY, Wang DH, Mei Y, Jin HL, Zhu KK, Liu XS, et al. Value of the prognostic nutritional index in advanced gastric cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy. Journal of Surgical Research 2017, 209(11):37–44. pmid:28032569
  8. 8. Oba T, Maeno K, Takekoshi D, Ono M, Ito T, Kanai T, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy-induced decrease of prognostic nutrition index predicts poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2020, 20(1):160. pmid:32106833
  9. 9. Hua X, Long ZQ, Huang X, Deng JP, He ZY, Guo L, et al. The Value of Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) in Predicting Survival and Guiding Radiotherapy of Patients With T1-2N1 Breast Cancer. Frontiers in oncology 2019, 9(5):1562. pmid:32083015
  10. 10. Chen L, Bai P, Kong X, Huang S, Wang Z, Wang X, et al. Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) in Patients With Breast Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy as a Useful Prognostic Indicator. Front Cell Dev Biol 2021, 9(8):656741. pmid:33859986
  11. 11. Stang A: Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European journal of epidemiology 2010, 25(9):603–605. pmid:20652370
  12. 12. Kuritz SJ, Landis JR, Koch GG: A general overview of Mantel-Haenszel methods: applications and recent developments. Annual review of public health 1988(3), 9:123–160. pmid:3288229
  13. 13. DerSimonian R, Kacker R: Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemporary clinical trials 2007, 28(2):105–114. pmid:16807131
  14. 14. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj 1997, 315(7109):629–634. pmid:9310563
  15. 15. Oba T, Maeno K, Ono M, Ito T, Kanai T, Ito KI: Prognostic Nutritional Index Is Superior to Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio as a Prognostic Marker in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Eribulin. Anticancer Res 2021, 41(1):445–452. pmid:33419842
  16. 16. Soberanis-Piña PD, Varela-Santoyo E, Arroyave-Ramirez AM, Buerba-Vieregge HH, Motola-Kuba D: Abstract PS6-57: Association of the prognostic nutritional index and survival of patients with breast cancer in a third-level care hospital in Mexico. Cancer Research 2021, 81(4 Supplement):PS6-57–PS56-57.
  17. 17. Mohri T, Mohri Y, Shigemori T, Takeuchi K, Itoh Y, Kato T: Impact of prognostic nutritional index on long-term outcomes in patients with breast cancer. World journal of surgical oncology 2016, 14(1):170. pmid:27349744
  18. 18. Yang Z, Zhang B, Hou L, Xie Y, Cao X: Pre-operative prognostic nutritional index predicts the outcomes for triple-negative breast cancer. Tumour Biol 2014, 35(12):12165–12171. pmid:25172099
  19. 19. Liu XC, Sun XW, Liu JJ, Kong PF, Chen SX, Zhan YQ, et al. Preoperative C-Reactive Protein/Albumin Ratio Predicts Prognosis of Patients after Curative Resection for Gastric Cancer. Translational oncology 2015, 8(4):339–345. pmid:26310380
  20. 20. Sun LC, Chu KS, Cheng SC, Lu CY, Kuo CH, Hsieh JS, et al. Preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen, albumin and age are supplementary to UICC staging systems in predicting survival for colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgical treatment. Bmc Cancer 2009, 9(7):288. pmid:19691850
  21. 21. Dixon MR, Haukoos JS, Udani SM, Naghi JJ, Arnell TD, Kumar RR, et al. Carcinoembryonic antigen and albumin predict survival in, patients with advanced colon and rectal cancer. Archives of surgery 2003, 138(9):962–966. pmid:12963652
  22. 22. Gupta D, Lis CG: Pretreatment serum albumin as a predictor of cancer survival: A systematic review of the epidemiological literature. Nutr J 2010, 9(1):69. pmid:21176210
  23. 23. Dunn GP, Old LJ, Schreiber RD: The immunobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting. Immunity 2004, 21(2):137–148. pmid:15308095
  24. 24. An X, Ding PR, Li YH, Wang FH, Shi YX, Wang ZQ, et al. Elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Biomarkers: biochemical indicators of exposure, response, and susceptibility to chemicals 2010, 15(6):516–522. pmid:20602543
  25. 25. Loi S, Sirtaine N, Piette F, Salgado R, Viale G, Van Eenoo F, et al: Prognostic and Predictive Value of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in a Phase III Randomized Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trial in Node-Positive Breast Cancer Comparing the Addition of Docetaxel to Doxorubicin With Doxorubicin-Based Chemotherapy: BIG 02–98. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013, 31(7):860–867. pmid:23341518
  26. 26. Gooden MJM, de Bock GH, Leffers N, Daemen T, Nijman HW: The prognostic influence of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis. British journal of cancer 2011, 105(1):93–103. pmid:21629244
  27. 27. Denkert C, Loibl S, Noske A, Roller M, Muller BM, Komor M, et al: Tumor-Associated Lymphocytes As an Independent Predictor of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2010, 28(1):105–113. pmid:19917869