Back to all available

Development and Validation of an Inflammatory-Immune-Nutritional Integrated Scoring system: A novel strategy for predicting postoperative survival in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

epidemiology
immunology
nutrition
oncology
translational-medicine

Abstract

Background. Accurate prognosis prediction is crucial for managing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Tumor heterogeneity limits the predictive power of traditional TNM staging alone. The interplay between inflammation, immunity, and nutrition in the tumor microenvironment offers a potential source of novel prognostic biomarkers.

Methods. This multicenter retrospective study enrolled 473 stage I-IIIA NSCLC patients who underwent radical resection. An inflammatory-immune-nutritional integrated scoring system (IINS) was developed using LASSO Cox regression from preoperative hematological parameters. The model was validated internally (n=142) and externally using the NHANES database (n=134). A prognostic nomogram incorporating IINS and clinicopathological factors was constructed and evaluated using time-dependent ROC curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

Results: The IINS was formulated based on platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI), and prognostic nutritional index (PNI). Patients were stratified into high- and low-IINS groups using an optimal cutoff of 4.9. Multivariate analysis identified IINS as an independent prognostic factor for both overall survival (OS) (HR=1.63, 95% CI 1.17-2.26, P =0.004) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR=1.41, 95% CI 1.02-1.97, P =0.039). The nomogram demonstrated good predictive accuracy, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year AUCs for OS ranging from 0.695 to 0.730 in the validation cohort. DCA confirmed the nomogram's superior clinical utility compared to the TNM staging system. External validation in the NHANES cohort confirmed the IINS's ability to stratify patient risk.

Conclusions. The novel IINS, integrating inflammatory, immune, and nutritional status, is a robust independent prognostic indicator for resected NSCLC. The developed nomogram provides a user-friendly and accurate tool for predicting postoperative survival, potentially aiding in risk stratification and personalized adjuvant therapy decisions.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].