Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The prognostic significance of controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score for surgically treated renal cell cancer and upper urinary tract urothelial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 76, pages 801–810 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

In order to evaluate the predictive effect of the controlled nutritional status (CONUT) score on the prognosis of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), a meta-analysis was performed. This systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO, the registration ID is CRD42021251879. A systematic search of the published literature using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE was performed. The fields of “renal cell cancer,” “upper tract urothelial cancer,” and “controlling nutritional status” and other fields were used as search terms. STATA 16 software was used to carry out data merging and statistical analysis of binary variables, Q test and χ2 tests were used to verify the heterogeneity between the included works of studies. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to explain the sources of heterogeneity between studies. Begg’s test was used to assess publication bias between studies. From the first 542 studies retrieved, through strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, 7 studies finally met the requirements and were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled results indicated that high CONUT indicates worse over survival (OS) [HR = 1.70, 95% CI (1.43–2.03), P = 0.02], cancer-specific survival (CSS) [HR = 1.84, 95% CI (1.52–2.23), P = 0.01], recurrence-free survival (RFS) [HR = 1.60, 95% CI (1.26–2.03), P = 0.116], and disease-free survival (DFS) [HR = 1.47, 95% CI (1.20–1.81), P = 0.03]. Based on cancer type, cutoff value, region, and sample size, a subgroup analysis was performed. The results showed that OS and CSS were not affected by the above factors, and the high CONUT score before surgery predicted worse OS and CSS. In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed that the preoperative CONUT score is a potential independent predictor of the postoperative prognosis of RCC/UTUC patients. A high CONUT predicts worse OS/CSS/DFS and RFS in patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2: Forest plot and meta-analysis.
Fig. 3: Forest plot for subgroup analysis of OS and CONUT.
Fig. 4: Forest plot for subgroup analysis of CSS and CONUT.
Fig. 5: Forest plot for sensitivity analysis.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.

References

  1. Shuch B, Amin A, Armstrong AJ, Eble JN, Ficarra V, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. Understanding pathologic variants of renal cell carcinoma: distilling therapeutic opportunities from biologic complexity. Eur Urol. 2015;67:85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.04.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kang B, Sun C, Gu H, Yang S, Yuan X, Ji C, et al. T1 stage clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a CT-based radiomics nomogram to estimate the risk of recurrence and metastasis. Front Oncol. 2020;10:579619 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.579619.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Park YH, Baik KD, Lee YJ, Ku JH, Kim HH, Kwak C. Late recurrence of renal cell carcinoma >5 years after surgery: clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E553–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11246.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elghiaty A, Kim J, Jang WS, Park JS, Heo JE, Rha KH, et al. Preoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score as a novel immune-nutritional predictor of survival in non-metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma of ≤7 cm on preoperative imaging. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019;145:957–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-019-02846-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Petros FG. Epidemiology, clinical presentation, and evaluation of upper-tract urothelial carcinoma. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:1794–8. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.11.22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Burger M, Capoun O, Cohen D, Compérat EM, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2020 update. Eur Urol. 2021;79:62–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Compérat E, Zigeuner R, Sylvester RJ, Burger M, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2017 update. Eur Urol. 2018;73:111–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Su X, Lu X, Bazai SK, Compérat E, Mouawad R, Yao H, et al. Comprehensive integrative profiling of upper tract urothelial carcinomas. Genome Biol. 2021;22:7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02230-w.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Owens B. Kidney cancer. Nature. 2016;537:S97 https://doi.org/10.1038/537S97a.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Turajlic S, Swanton C, Boshoff C. Kidney cancer: the next decade. J Exp Med. 2018;215:2477–9. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20181617.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kutikov A, Egleston BL, Wong YN, Uzzo RG. Evaluating overall survival and competing risks of death in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma using a comprehensive nomogram. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:311–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.22.4816.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Costa-Pinheiro P, Montezuma D, Henrique R, Jerónimo C. Diagnostic and prognostic epigenetic biomarkers in cancer. Epigenomics. 2015;7:1003–15. https://doi.org/10.2217/epi.15.56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liang RF, Li JH, Li M, Yang Y, Liu YH. The prognostic role of controlling nutritional status scores in patients with solid tumors. Clin Chim Acta. 2017;474:155–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2017.09.021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Linehan WM, Ricketts CJ. The metabolic basis of kidney cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2013;23:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2012.06.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee HY, Tang JH, Chen YH, Wu WJ, Juan YS, Li WM, et al. The metabolic syndrome is associated with the risk of urothelial carcinoma from a health examination database. Int J Clin Oncol. 2021;26:569–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-020-01834-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim HL, Han KR, Zisman A, Figlin RA, Belldegrun AS. Cachexia-like symptoms predict a worse prognosis in localized t1 renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2004;171:1810–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000121440.82581.d3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Galdiero MR, Marone G, Mantovani A. Cancer inflammation and cytokines. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2018;10:a028662. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a028662.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Harimoto N, Yoshizumi T, Inokuchi S, Itoh S, Adachi E, Ikeda Y, et al. Prognostic significance of preoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in patients undergoing hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multi-institutional study. Ann surgical Oncol. 2018;25:3316–23. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6672-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Itami Y, Miyake M, Tatsumi Y, Gotoh D, Hori S, Morizawa Y, et al. Preoperative predictive factors focused on inflammation-, nutrition-, and muscle-status in patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma undergoing nephroureterectomy. Int J Clin Oncol. 2019;24:533–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-01381-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahiko Y, Shida D, Horie T, Tanabe T, Takamizawa Y, Sakamoto R, et al. Controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score as a preoperative risk assessment index for older patients with colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:946. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-6218-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuroda D, Sawayama H, Kurashige J, Iwatsuki M, Eto T, Tokunaga R, et al. Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is a prognostic marker for gastric cancer patients after curative resection. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21:204–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-017-0744-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Niu X, Zhu Z, Bao J. Prognostic significance of pretreatment controlling nutritional status score in urological cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Cell Int. 2021;21:126 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12935-021-01813-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle Ottawa 1 Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in metaanalyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.

  25. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17:2815–34. 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Le Chevalier T, Scagliotti G, Natale R, Danson S, Rosell R, Stahel R, et al. Efficacy of gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy compared with other platinum containing regimens in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of survival outcomes. Lung Cancer. 2005;47:69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.10.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1148–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyn065.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin L, Chu H. Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2018;74:785–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12817.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bao Z, Li Y, Guan B, Xiong G, Zhang L, Tang Q, et al. High preoperative controlling nutritional status score predicts a poor prognosis in patients with localized upper tract urothelial cancer: a propensity score matching study in a large chinese center. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:323–35. https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.S225711.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ishihara H, Kondo T, Yoshida K, Omae K, Takagi T, Iizuka J, et al. Preoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score as a novel predictive biomarker of survival in patients with localized urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract treated with radical nephroureterectomy. Urologic Oncol. 2017;35:539.e539–539.e516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.04.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kang HW, Seo SP, Kim WT, Yun SJ, Lee SC, Kim WJ, et al. Prognostic impact of nutritional status assessed by the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in patients with surgically treated renal cell carcinoma. Nutr Cancer. 2018;70:886–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2018.1490448.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Song H, Xu B, Luo C, Zhang Z, Ma B, Jin J, et al. The prognostic value of preoperative controlling nutritional status score in non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with surgery: a retrospective single-institution study. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:7567–75. https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.S209418.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Xu H, Tan P, Jin X, Ai J, Lin T, Lei H, et al. Validation of the preoperative controlling nutritional status score as an independent predictor in a large Chinese cohort of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Med. 2018;7:6112–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1902.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Zheng Y, Bao L, Wang W, Wang Q, Pan Y, Gao X. Prognostic impact of the Controlling Nutritional Status score following curative nephrectomy for patients with renal cell carcinoma. Medicine. 2018;97:e13409 https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000013409.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ignacio de Ulíbarri J, González-Madroño A, de Villar NG, González P, González B, Mancha A, et al. CONUT: a tool for controlling nutritional status. First validation in a hospital population. Nutr Hosp. 2005;20:38–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang J, Liu Y, Mi X, Shao M, Liu L. The prognostic value of prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with platinum-based chemotherapeutics. Ann Palliat Med. 2020;9:967–78. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm.2020.04.31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mao YS, Hao SJ, Zou CF, Xie ZB, Fu DL. Controlling Nutritional Status score is superior to Prognostic Nutritional Index score in predicting survival and complications in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a Chinese propensity score matching study. Br J Nutr. 2020;124:1190–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114520002299.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yang C, Wei C, Wang S, Han S, Shi D, Zhang C, et al. Combined features based on preoperative controlling nutritional status score and circulating tumour cell status predict prognosis for colorectal cancer patients treated with curative resection. Int J Biol Sci. 2019;15:1325–35. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.33671.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Yılmaz A, Tekin SB, Bilici M, Yılmaz H. The significance of controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score as a novel prognostic parameter in small cell. Lung Cancer Lung. 2020;198:695–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00408-020-00361-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Akabane M, Shindoh J, Kobayashi Y, Umino R, Kojima K, Okubo S, et al. Significance of preoperative nutritional status as a predictor for short-term and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for stage IV colorectal cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02255-0. Online ahead of print.

  42. Müller L, Hahn F, Mähringer-Kunz A, Stoehr F, Gairing SJ, Foerster F, et al. Immunonutritive scoring in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization: prognostic nutritional index or controlling nutritional status score? Front Oncol. 2021;11:696183 https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.696183.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang G, Zhang Y, He F, Wu H, Wang C, Fu C. Preoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score is a prognostic factor for early-stage cervical cancer patients with high-risk factors. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162:763–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.06.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. López Espuela F, Roncero-Martín R, Zamorano JDP, Rey-Sanchez P, Aliaga-Vera I, Portilla Cuenca JC, et al. Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score as a predictor of all-cause mortality at 3 months in stroke patients. Biol Res Nurs. 2019;21:564–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099800419860253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Liu J, Wang F, Li S, Huang W, Jia Y, Wei C. The prognostic significance of preoperative serum albumin in urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biosci Rep. 2018;38:BSR20180214. https://doi.org/10.1042/bsr20180214.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Sheth KR, Haddad AQ, Ashorobi OS, Meissner MA, Sagalowsky AI, Lotan Y, et al. Prognostic serum markers in patients with high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urologic Oncol. 2016;34:418.e419–418.e416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rossi JF, Lu ZY, Jourdan M, Klein B. Interleukin-6 as a therapeutic target. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:1248–57. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-14-2291.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bekos C, Polterauer S, Seebacher V, Bartl T, Joura E, Reinthaller A, et al. Pre-operative hypoalbuminemia is associated with complication rate and overall survival in patients with vulvar cancer undergoing surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;300:1015–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05278-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. McMillan DC. The systemic inflammation-based Glasgow Prognostic Score: a decade of experience in patients with cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:534–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Omura S, Taguchi S, Miyagawa S, Matsumoto R, Samejima M, Ninomiya N, et al. Prognostic significance of the albumin-to-globulin ratio for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. BMC Urol. 2020;20:133 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00700-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Tanriverdi O. A discussion of serum albumin level in advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a medical oncologist’s perspective. Med Oncol. 2014;31:282 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-014-0282-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gupta D, Lis CG. Pretreatment serum albumin as a predictor of cancer survival: a systematic review of the epidemiological literature. Nutr J. 2010;9:69 https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-9-69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Silvente-Poirot S, Poirot M. Cancer. Cholesterol and cancer, in the balance. Science. 2014;343:1445–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1252787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Heilos D, Röhrl C, Pirker C, Englinger B, Baier D, Mohr T, et al. Altered membrane rigidity via enhanced endogenous cholesterol synthesis drives cancer cell resistance to destruxins. Oncotarget. 2018;9:25661–80. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.25432.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhang J, Li Q, Wu Y, Wang D, Xu L, Zhang Y, et al. Cholesterol content in cell membrane maintains surface levels of ErbB2 and confers a therapeutic vulnerability in ErbB2-positive breast cancer. Cell Commun Signal. 2019;17:15 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12964-019-0328-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Sung HH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Choi HY, et al. Clinical significance of prognosis using the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and erythrocyte sedimentation rate in patients undergoing radical nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int. 2015;115:587–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12846.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Farhood B, Najafi M, Mortezaee K. CD8(+) cytotoxic T lymphocytes in cancer immunotherapy: a review. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234:8509–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.27782.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Yap SA, Schupp CW, Chamie K, Evans CP, Koppie TM. Effect of age on transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: presentation, treatment, and outcomes. Urology. 2011;78:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.03.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Znaor A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Laversanne M, Jemal A, Bray F. International variations and trends in renal cell carcinoma incidence and mortality. Eur Urol. 2015;67:519–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Panian J, Lin X, Simantov R, Derweesh I, Choueiri TK, McKay RR. The impact of age and gender on outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020;18:e598–e609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.03.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Nakagomi A, Kohashi K, Morisawa T, Kosugi M, Endoh I, Kusama Y, et al. Nutritional status is associated with inflammation and predicts a poor outcome in patients with chronic heart failure. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2016;23:713–27. https://doi.org/10.5551/jat.31526.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Wada H, Dohi T, Miyauchi K, Endo H, Tsuboi S, Ogita M, et al. Combined effect of nutritional status on long-term outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart Vessels. 2018;33:1445–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-018-1201-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dr. Yunxiang Li for the funding support and technical route planning for this research.

Funding

This work was supported by the Sichuan Province Science and Technology Planning Project under Grant number 2020YFS0320 and Sichuan Provincial Health Committee Research Project under Grant number 20PJ305.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Lei Peng, Chunyang Meng.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, 63700, Sichuan, P. R. China

    Lei Peng, Chunyang Meng, Chengyu You, Yuelin Du, Wei Xiong, Zhongyou Xia & Yunxiang Li

  2. Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P. R. China

    Jinze Li & Dehong Cao

  3. State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, Chengdu, 610041, P. R. China

    Dehong Cao

Authors
  1. Lei Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chunyang Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jinze Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chengyu You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuelin Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wei Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zhongyou Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dehong Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yunxiang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: YL and DC. Analyzed the data: LP, JL, and CM. Manuscript proofreading/grammar revision: CY, YD, WX, and ZX. Wrote the manuscript: LP and JL. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dehong Cao or Yunxiang Li.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peng, L., Meng, C., Li, J. et al. The prognostic significance of controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score for surgically treated renal cell cancer and upper urinary tract urothelial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr 76, 801–810 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-021-01014-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-021-01014-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links