We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess the potential prognostic utility of geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) for head and neck cancer (HNC). We selected studies and extracted data after searching the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed databases. The associations between GNRI and survival outcomes were explored by calculating hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) through a random-effects meta-analysis. We included 11 studies that involved 2887 patients with HNC. The combined HR demonstrated significant associations of low GNRI with unfavorable progression-free survival (HR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.32-2.65, p < 0.001) and overall survival (HR = 3.04, 95% CI = 2.30-4.03, p < 0.001). The association between the GNRI and overall survival persisted across various subgroups. The GNRI could serve as a valuable prognostic biomarker for patients with HNC. Low GNRI scores are significantly associated with unfavorable survival outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional assessment tools are used to predict outcomes in cancer. However, their utility in patients undergoing spinal surgery is unclear. This review examined if prognostic nutritional index (PNI), controlling nutritional status (CONUT), and geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) can predict adverse events after spinal surgeries.
METHODS: PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Embase were screened by two reviewers for relevant studies up to 26th January 2024. The primary outcome of interest was total adverse events after spinal surgery. Secondary outcomes were surgical site infections (SSI) and mortality.
RESULTS: 14 studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that while reduced PNI was not associated with an increased risk of SSI there was a significant association between PNI and higher risk of adverse events. Meta-analysis showed that high CONUT was not associated with an increased risk of complications after spinal surgeries. Pooled analysis showed that low GNRI was associated with an increased risk of both SSI and adverse events. Data on mortality was scarce.
CONCLUSIONS: The PNI and GNRI can predict adverse outcomes after spinal surgeries. Limited data shows that high CONUT is also associated with a non-significant increased risk of adverse outcomes. High GNRI was predictive of an increased risk of SSI. Data on mortality is too scarce for strong conclusions.

UNASSIGNED: Recent studies have reported inconsistent results regarding the association between geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) and clinical outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of low GNRI on the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HMs.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted the research via PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify trials. Exploring the association between GNRI and prognosis in patients with HMs. A meta-analysis of OS and PFS was performed. Quality In Prognostic Studies instrument and Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment Scale were used to assess the quality of included trials.
UNASSIGNED: Fourteen studies enrolling 3,524 patients with HMs were included. Low GNRI was associated with shorter OS (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.44-2.18, p < 0.01) and PFS (HR = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.17-2.27, p < 0.01) in patients with HMs. In the subgroup analysis, GNRI was not significantly associated with prognosis in Chinese patients with HMs (OS, HR =1.33; 95% CI = 0.89-1.98, p = 0.16; PFS, HR = 1.70; 95% CI = 0.72-4.01, p = 0.23). For the subgroup with a GNRI cutoff value less than 98, there was no significant difference in PFS (HR = 1.34; 95% CI = 0.98-1.83, p = 0.06).
UNASSIGNED: Low GNRI negatively impacted on the prognosis in patients with HMs. Prospective studies to identify the best cut-off value for GNRI are required.

BACKGROUND: Nutrition has become an important parameter influencing the prognosis of several cancers. However, its impact on outcomes for bladder cancer (BC) is still unclear. This review examines the association between three commonly used nutritional indices, namely, the prognostic nutritional index (PNI), controlling nutritional status (CONUT), and the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) and outcomes of BC.
METHODS: PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were explored for studies published up to April 13, 2023. Data from studies were pooled to examine the association between PNI, CONUT, or GNRI and overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly poor OS with low PNI versus high PNI in BC patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37, 2.14; I2 = 0%). This result remained significant in various subgroup analyses. However, no association was noted between PNI and RFS (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.67, 2.24; I2 = 84%). Meta-analysis showed that patients with high CONUT scores had significantly poor OS (HR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.82, 3.25; I2 = 0%) as well as RFS (HR: 2.90; 95% CI: 2.10, 4.01; I2 = 0%). Data on GNRI were scarce and conflicting.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited data show that PNI and CONUT are predictive of outcomes in BC. Low PNI was associated with poor OS, while high CONUT was associated with poor OS and RFS. Data on GNRI are too scarce to obtain conclusions. Further studies are needed to supplement the results.

BACKGROUND: Novel evidence showed that the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) may lead to poor prognosis of human cancers. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the impact of GNRI in lung cancer and its prognostic value.
METHODS: We searched the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to July 2021 for relevant research and merged the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the association between GNRI and overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with lung cancer.
RESULTS: Eight studies involving 2,399 patients were included in our primary meta-analysis. The results indicated that lower level of GNRI was associated with poorer OS, RFS, and CSS of lung cancer patients (OS: HR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.68-2.35, p < 0.0001; RFS: HR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.11-4.95, p = 0.0258; CSS: HR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.43-4.18, p = 0.0011). The association was robust after subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: GNRI may be a prognostic factor of lung cancer, which can lead to poorer survival. However, more prospective studies are necessary to confirm the results.
BACKGROUND: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), identifier CRD42021269574.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the most significant risk factors for cardiovasculardisese. Malnutrition has been recognized as a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease in patients with CKD, including those on chronic dialysis. Current studies showed higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates in patients with CKD and malnutrition. Geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), a simple and validated nutritional screening measure for both elderly people and patients on dialysis, is based only on three objective parameters: body weight, height, and serum albumin level. Recently, we demonstrated that the cutoff GNRI for predicting all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was 96 in patients on hemodialysis. Moreover, together with left ventricular hypertrophy and low estimated glomerular filtration rate, the utility of GNRI as a significant determinant of cardiovascular events was demonstrated in non-dialysis-dependent patients with CKD. In the present review, we summarize available evidence regarding the relationship of GNRI with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with CKD including those on dialysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) on the prognosis of patients with gastrointestinal malignancy remains unclear. The aim of our study was to systematically explore the value of the GNRI in evaluating postoperative complications and long-term outcomes in gastrointestinal malignancy.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using electronic databases to report the impact of the GNRI on postoperative complications and long-term outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies as of August 2020. The hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the impact of the GNRI on long-term outcomes. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was used to assess the impact of the GNRI on postoperative complications.
RESULTS: A total of nine studies with 2,153 patients were enrolled in our meta-analysis. The results suggested that a low GNRI was correlated with poor overall survival of patients with gastrointestinal malignancy (HR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.65-2.28, p < 0.001). Patients with a low GNRI had a higher risk of complications than patients with a high GNRI (OR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.57-3.05, p < 0.001). In addition, patients with a low GNRI had shorter relapse-free survival (HR = 2.45, 95% CI 1.50-4.00, p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.23-2.76, p = 0.003) than those with a high GNRI. However, the GNRI was not an independent factor affecting cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.60, 95% CI 0.91-2.82, p = 0.101).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing evidence, the GNRI was a valuable predictor of complications and long-term outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal malignancy.