OL Oncology Letters 1792-1074 1792-1082 D.A. Spandidos 10.3892/ol.2025.15181 OL-30-3-15181 Articles Usefulness of the preoperative Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index as a prognostic predictor for patients with gastric cancer LiJinquan YuLi HuXiaosheng HuangTao ChenMingmin ZhangShanzhong Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First People's Hospital of Jingdezhen, Jingdezhen, Jiangxi 33300, P.R. China Correspondence to: Dr Shanzhong Zhang, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First People's Hospital of Jingdezhen, 317 Zhonghuabei Road, Zhushan, Jingdezhen, Jiangxi 33300, P.R. China, E-mail: 1304498922@qq.com 092025 08072025 30 3 435 25022025 29052025 Copyright © 2025, Spandidos Publications 2025

The Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index (PINI), integrating albumin and monocyte counts, has emerged as a potential prognostic biomarker in gastrointestinal cancer. The present study aimed to evaluate its predictive value in patients with gastric cancer (GC) undergoing radical gastrectomy. A retrospective cohort study of 82 patients with GC treated at a single institute between January 2016 and December 2019 was conducted. PINI was calculated as [albumin (g/dl) × 0.9]-[monocytes (mm3) × 0.0007]. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined the optimal cutoff (3.075), and patients were stratified into low-PINI (≤3.075; n=33) and high-PINI (>3.075; n=49) groups. Primary outcomes were 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate. The high-PINI group demonstrated significantly higher 5-year RFS (79.6 vs. 51.5%; P<0.001) and OS (85.7 vs. 51.5%; P<0.001) rates compared with the low-PINI group. Multivariate analysis identified PINI ≥3.075 as an independent protective factor for both RFS [hazard ratio (HR), 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38–0.85; P=0.022] and OS (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25–0.72; P=0.012). Low-PINI patients exhibited more advanced disease characteristics, including higher rates of anemia (39.4 vs. 17.3%; P=0.020), hypoproteinemia (15.2 vs. 0.0%; P=0.005), advanced T stage (75.8 vs. 36.5%; P=0.002), nodal metastasis (63.6 vs. 44.9%; P=0.002) and stage II–III tumors (87.9 vs. 44.9%; P<0.001). In conclusion, preoperative PINI serves as a robust, independent prognostic indicator in GC, effectively stratifying patients by survival outcomes and tumor aggressiveness. The clinical implementation of PINI could enhance risk assessment and guide personalized treatment strategies. Further multicenter studies are warranted to validate these findings.

 Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index gastric cancer prognostic factor Science and Technology Project of Jingdezhen City, Jiangxi Province, China 20241SFZC012 The present study was funded by the Science and Technology Project of Jingdezhen City, Jiangxi Province, China (number 20241SFZC012). Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common malignant tumor and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide; in 2022, it accounted for ~968,350 new cases and 659,853 deaths globally (1). Despite advancements in targeted therapies, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and minimally invasive surgical techniques, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for patients with GC remains suboptimal (2). Although the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging system (3) serves as the gold standard for prognostic assessment, its predictive accuracy is limited by its inability to account for key biological features such as immune microenvironment heterogeneity, metabolic dysregulation and systemic inflammatory responses (2). This limitation underscores the need for novel prognostic biomarkers that integrate multidimensional biological parameters.

In recent years, composite inflammatory-nutritional indices derived from peripheral blood components have emerged as promising prognostic tools in GC research. The Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index (calculated as platelets × neutrophils/lymphocytes) (109/l) and the Prognostic Nutritional Index (calculated as albumin (g/l) + 5 × [lymphocytes (109/l)] have been independently associated with postoperative recurrence risk and OS in patients with GC (4,5). However, whether single-dimensional biomarkers adequately capture the complexity of tumor-host interactions remains debatable. Addressing this question, Jung et al (6) innovatively proposed the Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index (PINI), calculated as follows: [albumin (g/dl) × 0.9]-[monocytes (mm3) × 0.0007]. This is a multidimensional model integrating nutritional status (albumin) and innate immune response (monocytes) (6). Mechanistically, hypoalbuminemia reflects not only nutritional depletion but also systemic inflammation driven by IL-6 (7), while tumor-associated monocytes secrete VEGF-A and MMP-9 to promote angiogenesis and extracellular matrix remodeling, facilitating micrometastasis (8). Notably, Xie et al (9) recently validated the prognostic utility of PINI in colorectal cancer, suggesting its potential applicability across tumor types.

To date, the prognostic role of PINI in GC following curative resection remains unexplored. The present single-center retrospective cohort study aimed to systematically evaluate the association between PINI and recurrence-free survival (RFS), as well as OS, in patients with GC, assessing its prognostic value in those undergoing radical gastrectomy. PINI may serve as a critical risk stratification tool to identify patients with high-risk GC, enabling personalized treatment strategies and optimized clinical decision-making to improve long-term outcomes.

 Patients and methods <sec> <title>Patients

The present retrospective study analyzed clinicopathological data and laboratory hematological parameters (measured within 1 week preoperatively) from patients with GC who underwent radical gastrectomy at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First People's Hospital of Jingdezhen (Jingdezhen, China) between January 2016 and December 2019. Clinical and preoperative (1 week prior) laboratory data were collected from a maintained patient database. The inclusion criteria were as follows: i) Primary GC with histological confirmation; ii) no previous radiation or neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to surgery; and iii) radical GC resection. The exclusion criteria were as follows: i) Patients with additional malignancies; ii) patients with granulocytopenia or other hematological disorders; iii) a history of severe infection or an immunocompromised status within the last month; and iv) a lack of crucial baseline data and missing follow-up information.

 Treatment and follow-up

The disease staging established by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association was determined with reference to the TNM classification system (5th edition) (10). Postoperative complications occurring within 30 days were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system (11), with grade III or higher complications being recorded. Following Japanese GC treatment guidelines (12), patients with stage II or III GC received adjuvant chemotherapy when deemed clinically appropriate based on their overall health status. Postoperative surveillance included contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans performed at minimum every 6 months and blood tests conducted every 3 months. Patients were followed regularly through outpatient visits or telephone interviews every 3 months starting from postoperative day 1 until reaching the study endpoint, defined as either patient death or December 31, 2024, whichever occurred first. For outcome assessment, RFS was calculated as the time from surgery to GC recurrence, last follow-up or death, while OS was defined as the time from surgery to death from any cause or last follow-up for surviving patients.

 Determination of PINI

The PINI was calculated using the following formula: [albumin (g/dl) × 0.9]-[monocytes (mm3) × 0.0007], with measurements taken preoperatively (5).

 Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (v25.0; IBM Corp.). The predictive performance of PINI for patient outcomes was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, with the area under the curve (AUC) calculated to determine the optimal cutoff value using the Youden index. Based on this cutoff, patients were stratified into high-PINI and low-PINI groups for subsequent comparative analyses of clinicopathological characteristics. Continuous variables with normal distribution are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation and compared using independent samples t-tests, while non-normally distributed continuous variables are presented as median (Q1-Q3) and were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables are reported as n (%) and compared using either the χ2 test or Fisher's exact test. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were employed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RFS and OS. Variables demonstrating statistical significance (P<0.05) in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate model. Survival probabilities for RFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with between-group differences assessed by log-rank tests.

 Ethical approval

The present study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of Jingdezhen First People's Hospital (approval no. jdzyykt202425) and was conducted in full compliance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The requirement for informed consent was waived by the ethics committee as this retrospective study utilized anonymized clinical data without any identifiable patient information.

 Results <sec> <title>ROC analysis and survival outcomes stratified by PINI

ROC curve analysis identified an optimal PINI cutoff value of 3.075 (AUC, 0.712), demonstrating moderate predictive accuracy with 71.2% sensitivity and 69.6% specificity (Fig. 1). A total of 82 patients (aged 39–85 years) were divided into the low-PINI group (n=33; 40.2%) and the high-PINI group (n=49; 59.8%). Figs. 2 and 3 present the Kaplan-Meier analysis of RFS and OS stratified by PINI values. In Fig. 2, the 5-year RFS rate was significantly higher in the high-PINI group (PINI ≥3.075) at 79.6% compared with 51.5% in the low-PINI group (PINI<3.075) (log-rank P<0.001). Similarly, in Fig. 3, a higher 5-year OS rate was demonstrated in the high-PINI group (85.7%) compared with that in the low-PINI group (51.5%) (log-rank P<0.001). These findings consistently indicate that elevated PINI levels are strongly associated with improved long-term survival outcomes, underscoring its potential as a significant prognostic biomarker in GC.

 COX regression analysis of 5-year RFS in patients with GC after radical surgery

Table I presents the univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of factors associated with RFS in patients with GC. Univariate Cox regression analysis identified several significant prognostic factors for patients with GC, including surgical method (open vs. laparoscopic: HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11–0.96; P=0.042), anemia (yes vs. no: HR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.46–6.85; P=0.004), transfusion requirement (yes vs. no: HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.37–6.74; P=0.006), intraoperative blood loss (≥150 ml, yes vs. no: HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.05–4.94; P=0.036), operative time ≥210 min (yes vs. no: HR, 9.47; 95% CI, 2.84–31.63; P<0.001), tumor size ≥3.5 cm (yes vs. no: HR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.50–7.98; P=0.004), T stage (T0-1 vs. T2-4: HR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06–0.51; P=0.001), nodal involvement (N0 vs. N1-3: HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03–0.59; P=0.008), pathological stage (I vs. II–III: HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05–0.57; P=0.004) and PINI ≥3.075 (yes vs. no: HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.13–0.68; P=0.004). In multivariate analysis, operative time ≥210 min (yes vs. no: HR, 5.38; 95% CI, 1.32–21.93; P=0.019) and pathological stage (I vs. II–III: HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.25–0.88; P=0.037) remained independent predictors, while PINI ≥3.075 retained significance as a protective factor (yes vs. no: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38–0.85; P=0.022).

 COX regression analysis of 5-year OS in GC patients after radical surgery

Table II demonstrates the prognostic factors influencing OS in patients with GC through comprehensive Cox regression analyses. Univariate Cox regression analysis revealed several significant predictors of OS in patients with GC, including anemia (yes vs. no: HR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.25–6.71; P=0.013), hypertension (yes vs. no: HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.07–12.28; P=0.039), hypoproteinemia (yes vs. no: HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.07–12.28; P=0.039), transfusion requirement (yes vs. no: HR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.34–7.34; P=0.009), operative time ≥210 min (yes vs. no: HR, 11.56; 95% CI, 2.70–49.54; P<0.001), tumor size ≥3.5 cm (yes vs. no: HR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.54–10.10; P=0.004), T stage (T0-1 vs. T2-4: HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.67; P=0.007), N stage (N0 vs. N1-3: HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01–0.62; P=0.015), pathological stage (I vs. II–III: HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06–0.72; P=0.013) and PINI ≥3.075 (yes vs. no: HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12–0.69; P=0.005). Multivariate analysis confirmed that operative time ≥210 min (yes vs. no: HR, 7.12; 95% CI, 1.41–35.96; P=0.017) and pathological stage (I vs. II–III: HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08–0.89; P=0.045) maintained their status as independent prognostic indicators. Importantly, a PINI score ≥3.075 continued to demonstrate significant protective effects (yes vs. no: HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25–0.72; P=0.012) in the final model.

 Patient characteristics

This comparative analysis of 82 patients with GC stratified by PINI levels (low-PINI: <3.075, n=33; high-PINI: ≥3.075, n=49) revealed significant differences in clinical and pathological characteristics (Table III). The low-PINI group demonstrated substantially higher rates of adverse features, including anemia (39.4 vs. 16.3%; P=0.020), hypoproteinemia (15.2 vs. 0.0%; P=0.005), pyloric stenosis (12.1 vs. 0%; P=0.013), transfusion requirements (33.3 vs. 12.2%; P=0.022) and postoperative complications (36.4 vs. 16.3%; P=0.039). Pathologically, patients in the low-PINI group showed more advanced disease with higher T2-4 stage (75.8 vs. 36.5%; P=0.002), nodal involvement (63.6 vs. 44.9%; P=0.002) and stage II–III tumors (87.9 vs. 44.9%; P<0.001). Notably, the median PINI values differed significantly between groups (2.77 vs. 3.39; P<0.001). These findings collectively demonstrate that low PINI status is strongly associated with worse nutritional parameters, more advanced tumor characteristics and poorer surgical outcomes, suggesting its potential as a comprehensive marker integrating both inflammatory and nutritional status for risk stratification in patients with GC.

 Discussion

Hematological biomarkers offer distinct advantages, including accessibility, cost-effectiveness and reliable accuracy, with high patient acceptance and compliance. The PINI, as a representative hematological biomarker, has garnered increasing attention for its role in tumorigenesis, metastasis and antitumor immunity (13). The present retrospective analysis of patients with GC demonstrated that elevated PINI levels were significantly associated with improved RFS and OS rates. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first study in China to systematically integrate PINI with clinicopathological parameters in patients with GC, not only providing novel insights for personalized treatment but also validating the prognostic value of PINI in this population. These findings establish PINI as both an independent prognostic factor and a potential biomarker for guiding nutritional support and optimizing therapeutic strategies. The optimal PINI cutoff value identified in the present study (3.075) warrants discussion in the context of existing literature. Jung et al (6) initially proposed a cutoff value of 3.0 for risk stratification in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing radical resection, while Xie et al (9) subsequently recommended 2.85 based on Chinese colorectal cancer cohorts. The observed variations in optimal thresholds may stem from several factors, including methodological differences in statistical approaches, inherent tumor heterogeneity across cancer types and demographic variations among study populations. These factors collectively contribute to the observed fluctuations in establishing prognostic PINI thresholds.

The clinical relevance of PINI stems from its integration of albumin and monocyte counts, reflecting both inflammatory and nutritional status. Inflammatory cytokines disrupt protein metabolism by altering the balance between synthesis and degradation. Albumin, a classical nutritional marker, is regulated by proinflammatory cytokines, including IL-1, IL-6 and TNF-α (14,15). Patients with GC frequently develop malnutrition (prevalence up to 80%) due to increased protein catabolism and reduced intake, leading to elevated mortality, prolonged hospitalization, postoperative complications and treatment toxicity (16,17). Systemic inflammation plays a pivotal role in tumor progression and metastasis (18–21), while monocytes, as key inflammatory markers, facilitate tumor progression by creating an immunosuppressive microenvironment (22). Elevated monocyte counts correlate with a poor prognosis and lymph node metastasis in multiple malignancies, including Kaposi sarcoma (23), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (24), myelodysplastic neoplasms (25), pancreatic cancer (26), lung cancer (27) and solid tumors (28). The present study findings revealed that patients with PINI≥3.075 had significantly higher 5-year RFS (P<0.001) and OS (P<0.001) rates, with PINI emerging as an independent protective factor (P<0.05) following radical gastrectomy.

Multivariate analysis confirmed pathological stage as an independent prognostic factor for both RFS and OS (P<0.05). Advanced tumors create a vicious cycle where increased tumor burden exacerbates systemic catabolism, while tumor-induced inflammation further suppresses immune function, accelerating disease progression (29,30). In the present study, the low-PINI group exhibited significantly higher rates of anemia, hypoproteinemia, pyloric stenosis, transfusion requirements and postoperative complications. Notably, the median PINI values differed significantly between groups. Pathological evaluation revealed more advanced disease in the low-PINI group, including deeper tumor invasion, greater nodal metastasis and advanced-stage tumors, suggesting that low PINI reflects exacerbated inflammation and malnutrition, which predict adverse outcomes. These findings support the potential clinical value of nutritional and immunomodulatory interventions for patients with low PINI. Prolonged operative time (≥210 min) was identified as an independent prognostic factor for both RFS and OS in patients with GC following surgery. This association may be attributed to several potential factors, including a larger tumor size with advanced staging, tumor invasion into the surrounding tissues leading to unclear surgical margins, technical difficulties in tissue dissection, intraoperative bleeding requiring hemostasis or conversion to open surgery in some cases.

The present study has several limitations that warrant consideration. First, the single-center retrospective design and relatively limited sample size may introduce selection bias, highlighting the need for future multicenter studies with larger cohorts to validate the findings. Second, the proposed PINI cutoff value was derived from a single institutional dataset, necessitating external validation through collaborative multicenter research to confirm its generalizability across diverse populations. Finally, the exclusive reliance on single-timepoint PINI measurements precluded assessment of dynamic changes in this parameter over time, suggesting that future prospective studies incorporating serial measurements would provide more comprehensive insights into its clinical utility.

In conclusion, the present study establishes PINI as a simple yet powerful prognostic tool for patients with GC undergoing radical resection. The study findings demonstrate the following: i) PINI ≥3.075 independently predicts superior long-term survival outcomes; ii) the index effectively stratifies patients by surgical risk and tumor aggressiveness; and iii) it provides complementary value to conventional TNM staging. The biological plausibility of PINI, reflecting both systemic inflammation and nutritional status, strengthens its clinical relevance. While requiring external validation, these results suggest PINI could be readily incorporated into routine preoperative assessment to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from nutritional optimization or intensified surveillance. Future research should focus on prospective multicenter validation and investigate whether PINI-guided interventions can improve clinical outcomes. The present study advances the field by providing clinicians with a practical, cost-effective tool to enhance personalized decision-making in gastric cancer management.

 Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

 Availability of data and materials

The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.

 Authors' contributions

JL and SZ were responsible for the study conceptualization and methodology. JL and LY were responsible for validation, investigation and resources. Data curation, which consisted of data collection, data cleaning, data organization, data analysis preparation, and quality assurance, was performed by JL, LY, XH, TH and MC. JL and LY confirm the authenticity of all the raw data. JL wrote the original draft, and JL and SZ reviewed and edited the manuscript. Study visualization was performed by JL and LY. SZ supervised the study, while project administration was performed by JL, LY, XH, TH and MC. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

 Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee at The First People's Hospital of Jingdezhen (Jingdezhen, China; approval no. jdzyykt202425). The requirement for informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study and data anonymization.

 Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

 Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

 References BrayFLaversanneMSungHFerlayJSiegelRLSoerjomataramIJemalAGlobal cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countriesCA Cancer J Clin74229263202410.3322/caac.2183438572751 LiJJRogersJEWatersREGanQBlum MurphyMAjaniJAEvolution of Therapeutics for Locally Advanced Upper Gastrointestinal AdenocarcinomaCancers (Basel)171307202510.3390/cancers1708130740282483 AminMBEdgeSBGreeneFLByrdDRBrooklandRKWashingtonMKGershenwaldJEComptonCCHessKRSullivanDCAJCC Cancer Staging Manual8th editionSpringerNew York, NY2017 AoyamaTHashimotoIMaezawaYHaraKTamagawaAChoHMoritaJTanabeMNumataMKawaharaSThe clinical impact of the prognostic immune and nutritional index in gastric cancer patients who received curative treatmentAnticancer Res4422312238202410.21873/anticanres.1696138677750 ZhangYWangLJLiQYYuanZZhangDCXuHYangLGuXHXuZKPrognostic value of preoperative immune-nutritional scoring systems in remnant gastric cancer patients undergoing surgeryWorld J Gastrointest Surg15211221202310.4240/wjgs.v15.i2.21136896300 JungSHHaoJShivakumarMNamYKimJKimMJRyooSBChoeEKJeongSYParkKJDevelopment and validation of a novel strong prognostic index for colon cancer through a robust combination of laboratory features for systemic inflammation: A prognostic immune nutritional indexBr J Cancer12615391547202210.1038/s41416-022-01767-w35249104 EvansDCCorkinsMRMaloneAMillerSMogensenKMGuenterPJensenGLASPEN Malnutrition CommitteeThe use of visceral proteins as nutrition markers: An ASPEN position paperNutr Clin Pract36228202110.1002/ncp.1058833125793 ChittezhathMDhillonMKLimJYLaouiDShalovaINTeoYLChenJKamarajRRamanLLumJMolecular profiling reveals a tumor-promoting phenotype of monocytes and macrophages in human cancer progressionImmunity41815829201410.1016/j.immuni.2014.09.01425453823 XieHWeiLLiuMLiangYYuanGGaoSWangQLinXTangSGanJPrognostic significance of preoperative prognostic immune and nutritional index in patients with stage I–III colorectal cancerBMC Cancer221316202210.1186/s12885-022-10405-w36522702 Japanese Gastric Cancer AssociationJapanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018 (5th edition)Gastric Cancer24121202110.1007/s10120-020-01042-y32060757 ClavienPABarkunJde OliveiraMLVautheyJNDindoDSchulickRDde SantibañesEPekoljJSlankamenacKBassiCThe Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Five-year experienceAnn Surg250187196200910.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca219638912 Japanese Gastric Cancer AssociationJapanese classification of gastric carcinoma-2nd english edition -Gastric Cancer11024199810.1007/PL0001168111957040 KayikciogluEIscanGA novel prognostic index for metastatic colon cancer: The prognostic immune nutritional indexCureus15e33808202336819360 GuptaDLisCGPretreatment serum albumin as a predictor of cancer survival: A systematic review of the epidemiological literatureNutr J969201010.1186/1475-2891-9-6921176210 MantovaniAAllavenaPSicaABalkwillFCancer-related inflammationNature454436444200810.1038/nature0720518650914 KandaMTanakaHShimizuDMiwaTUmedaSTanakaCKobayashiDHattoriNSuenagaMHayashiMSYT7 acts as a driver of hepatic metastasis formation of gastric cancer cellsOncogene3753555366201810.1038/s41388-018-0335-829858600 DeftereosIKissNIsenringECarterVMYeungJMA systematic review of the effect of preoperative nutrition support on nutritional status and treatment outcomes in upper gastrointestinal cancer resectionEur J Surg Oncol4614231434202010.1016/j.ejso.2020.04.00832336624 AoyamaTMaezawaYHashimotoIRinoYOshimaTClinical impact of nutrition and inflammation assessment tools in pancreatic cancer treatmentAnticancer Res4338493860202310.21873/anticanres.1657237648333 AoyamaTKazamaKMaezawaYHaraKUsefulness of nutrition and inflammation assessment tools in esophageal cancer treatmentIn Vivo372235202310.21873/invivo.1305136593006 AoyamaTHaraKKazamaKMaezawaYClinical impact of nutrition and inflammation assessment tools in gastric cancer treatmentAnticancer Res4251675180202210.21873/anticanres.1602336288879 JuMAoyamaTFukudaMIshiguroTKanoKKazamaKSawazakiSTamagawaHYukawaNRinoYPrognostic value of the perioperative systemic inflammation score for patients with curatively resected gastric cancerCancer Diagn Progn2627633202210.21873/cdp.1015236340444 MildnerAKimKWYonaSUnravelling monocyte functions: From the guardians of health to the regulators of diseaseDiscov Immunol3kyae014202410.1093/discim/kyae01439430099 NeumeyerSTagawaTThe Kaposi sarcoma herpesvirus control of monocytes, macrophages, and the tumour microenvironmentVirology601110286202510.1016/j.virol.2024.11028639541833 JiangQPengYHerlingCDHerlingMThe immunomodulatory mechanisms of BTK inhibition in CLL and beyondCancers (Basel)163574202410.3390/cancers1621357439518015 JanssenLLGvan Leeuwen-KerkhoffNWestersTMde GruijlTDvan de LoosdrechtAAThe immunoregulatory role of monocytes and thrombomodulin in myelodysplastic neoplasmsFront Oncol141414102202410.3389/fonc.2024.141410239132505 LiHPengSAnRDuNWuHZhenXGaoYLiZMinJThe prognostic role of lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysisPeerJ12e17585202410.7717/peerj.1758539035167 LiMYWangYHZhangYLZhuWCLiFFBianLResearch advances in tissue-resident macrophages and monocyte-derived macrophages in lung cancerZhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi535155202024(In Chinese)38678340 AmmarahUPereira-NunesADelfiniMMazzoneMFrom monocyte-derived macrophages to resident macrophages-how metabolism leads their way in cancerMol Oncol1817391758202410.1002/1878-0261.1361838411356 LiuQWLiuLHuJXHouJQHeWBShuYSWangXLNomogram based on a novel nutritional immune-inflammatory status score to predict postoperative outcomes in esophageal squamous cell carcinomaWorld J Gastroenterol31101749202510.3748/wjg.v31.i4.10174939877711 WuCQiZChenJYanXLiSWangLYuLJiangYPrognostic value of inflammation and nutritional indicators for sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: A single-center retrospective studyLaryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol10e70046202510.1002/lio2.7004639816921

Receiver operating characteristic curve for the PINI. AUC, area under the curve; PINI, Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index.

Figure 1. Receiver operating characteristic curve for the PINI. AUC, area under the curve; PINI, Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index.

RFS in patients with gastric cancer in the PINI-high and PINI-low groups. RFS, recurrence-free survival; PINI, Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index.

Figure 2. RFS in patients with gastric cancer in the PINI–high and PINI–low groups. RFS, recurrence–free survival; PINI, Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index.

OS of patients with GC in the PINI-high and PINI-low groups. OS, overall survival; PINI, Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index.

Figure 3. OS of patients with GC in the PINI–high and PINI–low groups. OS, overall survival; PINI, Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index.

Univariate and multivariate analysis for recurrence-free survival in patients with gastric cancer.

Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Variables HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
Age (<65 vs. ≥65 years) 0.58 (0.27–1.25) 0.168
Sex (male vs. female) 1.38 (0.58–3.28) 0.466
Tumor location (upper-middle part vs. lower part) 1.79 (0.83–3.86) 0.672
Surgical procedure (TG vs. no TG) 0.63 (0.07–5.43) 0.676
Surgical method (open vs. laparoscopic) 0.33 (0.11–0.96) 0.042 0.73 (0.38–4.15) 0.263
Anastomotic methods (BI + BII vs. R-Y) 1.25 (0.44–3.58) 0.672
Anemia (yes vs. no) 3.16 (1.46–6.85) 0.004 2.67 (0.89–8.03) 0.080
Hypertension (yes vs. no) 3.09 (0.92–10.31) 0.067
Pulmonary disease (yes vs. no) 1.57 (0.66–3.74) 0.307
Diabetes (yes vs. no) 1.45 (0.43–4.82) 0.547
Cardiovascular disease (yes vs. no) 0.39 (0.05–2.88) 0.356
Hypoproteinemia (yes vs. no) 3.09 (0.92–10.31) 0.067
Pyloric stenosis (yes vs. no) 1.87 (0.44–7.91) 0.397
Hospital stay ≥27 days (yes vs. no) 1.08 (0.50–2.36) 0.840
Postoperative hospital stay ≥16 days (yes vs. no) 2.19 (0.98–4.92) 0.057
Transfusion (yes vs. no) 3.04 (1.37–6.74) 0.006 0.61 (0.18–2.02) 0.416
Postoperative complications (yes vs. no) 1.55 (0.67–3.57) 0.281
Adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) 1.69 (0.68–4.22) 0.257
Operative time ≥210 min (yes vs. no) 9.47 (2.84–31.63) <0.001 5.38 (1.32–21.93) 0.019
Intraoperative blood loss ≥150 ml (yes vs. no) 2.28 (1.05–4.94) 0.036 1.17 (0.48–2.84) 0.735
Tumor size ≥3.5 cm (yes vs. no) 3.46 (1.50–7.98) 0.004 1.69 (0.66–4.31) 0.271
T stage (T0-1 vs. T2-4) 0.18 (0.06–0.51) 0.001 0.45 (0.12–1.75) 0.292
N stage (N0 vs. N1-3) 0.14 (0.03–0.59) 0.008 0.70 (0.13–3.89) 0.686
pStage (I vs. II–III) 0.17 (0.05–0.57) 0.004 0.63 (0.25–0.88) 0.037
Histopathology (well-moderately vs. poorly) 0.70 (0.31–1.57) 0.390
PINI ≥3.075 (yes vs. no) 0.30 (0.13–0.68) 0.004 0.59 (0.38–0.85) 0.022

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; TG, total gastrectomy; BI, Billroth I; BII, Billroth II; R-Y, Roux-en-Y; T, tumor; N, regional lymph node; pStage, pathological stage; PINI, Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index.

Univariate and multivariate analysis for overall survival in patients with gastric cancer.

Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Variables HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
Age (<65 vs. ≥65 years) 0.56 (0.250–1.23) 0.158
Sex (male vs. female) 1.09 (0.45–2.68) 0.845
Tumor location (upper-middle part vs. lower part) 1.76 (0.826–3.863) 0.574
Surgical procedure (TG vs. no TG) 0.58 (0.07–5.00) 0.623
Surgical method (open vs. laparoscopic) 0.41 (0.14–1.22) 0.108
Anastomotic methods (BI + BII vs. R-Y) 1.04 (0.32–3.42) 0.944
Anemia (yes vs. no) 2.89 (1.25–6.71) 0.013 2.18 (0.60–7.92) 0.234
Hypertension (yes vs. no) 3.62 (1.07–12.28) 0.039 1.15 (0.25–5.31) 0.856
Pulmonary disease (yes vs. no) 1.27 (0.47–3.44) 0.641
Diabetes (yes vs. no) 1.78 (0.53–6.02) 0.353
Cardiovascular disease (yes vs. no) 1.06 (0.250–4.53) 0.936
Hypoproteinemia (yes vs. no) 3.62 (1.07–12.28) 0.039 1.15 (0.25–5.31) 0.856
Pyloric stenosis (yes vs. no) 2.16 (0.50–9.25) 0.301
Hospital stay ≥27 days (yes vs. no) 1.03 (0.45–2.35) 0.942
Postoperative hospital stay ≥16 days (yes vs. no) 2.15 (0.91–5.08) 0.081
Transfusion (yes vs. no) 3.13 (1.34–7.34) 0.009 0.61 (0.16–2.29) 0.465
Postoperative complications (yes vs. no) 1.94 (0.81–4.62) 0.136
Adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) 1.70 (0.63–4.60) 0.300
Operative time ≥210 min (yes vs. no) 11.56 (2.70–49.54) <0.001 7.12 (1.41–35.96) 0.017
Intraoperative blood loss ≥150 ml (yes vs. no) 2.17 (0.94–5.03) 0.070
Tumor size ≥3.5 cm (yes vs. no) 3.95 (1.54–10.10) 0.004 1.75 (0.60–5.09) 0.306
T factor (T0-1 vs. T2-4) 0.23 (0.08–0.67) 0.007 0.62 (0.14–2.72) 0.529
N factor (N0 vs. N1-3) 0.08 (0.01–0.62) 0.015 0.47 (0.05–4.45) 0.510
pStage (I vs. II–III) 0.21 (0.06–0.72) 0.013 0.32 (0.08–0.89) 0.045
Histopathology (well-moderately vs. poorly) 0.66 (0.28–1.58)) 0.213
PINI ≥3.075 (yes vs. no) 0.29 (0.12–0.69) 0.005 0.45 (0.25–0.72) 0.012

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; TG, total gastrectomy; BI, Billroth I; BII, Billroth II; R-Y, Roux-en-Y; T, tumor; N, regional lymph node; pStage, pathological stage; PINI, Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index.

Baseline characteristics according to the PINI in 82 patients with gastric cancer.

Variables Total Low-PINI High-PINI P-value
Patients, n (%) 82 (100.0) 33 (40.2) 49 (59.8)
Mean age ± SD, years 61.60±10.03 63.88±10.53 60.06±9.49 0.091
Sex, n (%) 0.949
  Male 55 (67.1) 22 (66.7) 33 (67.3)
  Female 27 (32.9) 11 (33.3) 16 (32.7)
Tumor location, n (%) 0.693
  Upper part 6 (7.3) 2 (6.1) 4 (8.2)
  Middle part 26 (31.7) 12 (36.4) 14 (28.6)
  Lower part 50 (61.0) 19 (57.6) 31 (63.3)
Surgical procedure, n (%) 0.247
  Total gastrectomy 14 (17.1) 4 (12.1) 10 (20.4)
  No total gastrectomy 68 (82.9) 29 (87.9) 39 (79.6)
Surgical method, n (%) 0.236
  Open 56 (21.7) 25 (75.8) 31 (63.3)
  Laparoscopic surgery 26 (68.3) 8 (24.2) 18 (36.7)
Anastomotic methods, n (%) 0.214
  BI 21 (25.6) 11 (33.3) 10 (20.4)
  BII 43 (52.4) 16 (48.5) 27 (55.1)
  R-Y 18 (22.0) 6 (18.2) 12 (24.5)
Anemia, n (%) 0.020
  Yes 21 (25.6) 13 (39.4) 8 (16.3)
  No 61 (74.4) 20 (60.6) 41 (83.7)
Hypertension, n (%) 0.606
  Yes 25 (30.5) 9 (27.3) 16 (32.7)
  No 57 (69.5) 24 (72.7) 33 (67.3)
Pulmonary disease, n (%) 0.233
  Yes 17 (20.7) 9 (27.3) 8 (16.3)
  No 65 (79.3) 24 (72.7) 41 (83.7)
Diabetes, n (%) 0.179
  Yes 8 (9.8) 5 (15.2) 3 (6.1)
  No 74 (90.2) 28 (84.8) 46 (93.9)
Cardiovascular disease, n (%) 0.146
  Yes 7 (8.5) 1 (3.0) 6 (12.2)
  No 75 (91.5) 32 (97.0) 43 (87.8)
Hypoproteinemia, n (%) 0.005
  Yes 5 (6.1) 5 (15.2) 0 (0.0)
  No 77 (93.9) 28 (84.8) 49 (100.0)
Pyloric stenosis, n (%) 0.013
  Yes 4 (4.9) 4 (12.1) 0 (0.0)
  No 78 (95.1) 29 (87.9) 49 (100.0)
Hospital stay, days 26 (16–80) 27 (17–62) 26 (16–80) 0.429
Postoperative hospital stay, days 16 (11–61) 16 (12–46) 17 (11–61) 0.239
Transfusion, n (%) 0.022
  Yes 17 (20.7) 11 (33.3) 6 (12.2)
  No 65 (79.3) 22 (66.7) 43 (87.8)
Postoperative complications, n (%) 0.039
  Yes 20 (24.4) 12 (36.4) 8 (16.3)
  No 62 (75.6) 21 (63.6) 41 (83.7)
Adjuvant chemotherapy, n (%) 0.096
  Yes 26 (31.7) 7 (21.2) 19 (38.8)
  No 56 (68.3) 26 (78.8) 30 (61.2)
Operative time ≥210 min, n (%) 0.098
  Yes 43 (52.4) 21 (63.6) 22 (44.9)
  No 39 (47.6) 12 (36.4) 27 (55.1)
Intraoperative blood loss ≥150 ml,
n (%) 0.055
  Yes 25 (30.5) 14 (42.4) 11 (22.4)
  No 57 (69.5) 19 (57.6) 38 (77.6)
Tumor size ≥3.5 cm, n (%) 0.162
  Yes 37 (45.1) 18 (54.5) 19 (38.8)
  No 45 (54.9) 15 (45.5) 30 (61.2)
T factor, n (%) 0.002
  T0-1 44 (53.6) 8 (24.2) 36 (73.5)
  T2-4 38 (46.4) 25 (75.8) 13 (26.5)
N factor, n (%) 0.002
  N0 39 (47.6) 12 (36.4) 27 (55.1)
  N1-3 43 (52.4) 21 (63.6) 22 (44.9)
pStage, n (%) <0.001
  I 31 (37.8) 4 (12.1) 27 (55.1)
  II–III 51 (62.2) 29 (87.9) 22 (44.9)
Histopathology, n (%) 0.711
  Well-moderately differentiated 59 (72.0) 23 (69.7) 36 (73.5)
  Poorly differentiated 23 (28.0) 10 (30.3) 13 (26.5)
Median PINI (Q1, Q3) 3.20 2.77 3.39 <0.001
(2.83, 3.44) (2.51, 2.90) (3.27, 3.57)

PINI, Prognostic Immune and Nutritional Index HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; BI, Billroth I; BII, Billroth II; R-Y, Roux-en-Y; T, tumor; N, regional lymph node; pStage, pathological stage; SD, standard deviation.