| Title |
The Charlson Comorbidity Index as an Independent Prognostic Factor in Older Colorectal Cancer Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Indian Journal of Surgery, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12262-016-1544-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tetsuro Tominaga, Takashi Nonaka, Hiroaki Takeshita, Masaki Kunizaki, Yorihisa Sumida, Shigekazu Hidaka, Terumitsu Sawai, Takeshi Nagayasu |
| Abstract |
High-age patients have higher rates of comorbidity that are associated with a poor prognosis. It is important to correctly evaluate their preoperative status to avoid mortality. The aim of this study was to clarify whether the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was useful for predicting postoperative outcomes. This retrospective study collected data from 250 consecutive patients over 75 years of age. The CCI takes into account 19 comorbid conditions. Inflammation-based scores, including the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and the platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), are other preoperative scoring systems. The relationships among these scores and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. The patients were classified according to their vital status (dead,n = 30 or alive,n = 220). Comorbidities, the presence of double cancer, and lymph node metastases were significantly different between the groups (p < 0.01,p = 0.01, andp < 0.01). In regard to the scoring systems, the CCI, GPS, and PLR were significantly different (p = 0.02,p = 0.03, andp = 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified CCI ≥ 2 (hazard ratio (HR) = 5.24, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.30-12.1,p = 0.01) as a significant determinant of postoperative outcome (p < 0.01). The overall survival tended to be lower in patients with high CCI scores group (p = 0.03). The CCI was useful to predict postoperative outcomes in high-age colorectal cancer patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,788
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Indian Journal of Surgery
#462
of 654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,076
of 341,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Indian Journal of Surgery
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 654 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,481 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.