Background and Objectives: The systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), derived from peripheral blood parameters, has emerged as a novel marker reflecting the balance between host immunity and tumor-related inflammatory burden. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of baseline SII on survival outcomes in patients with gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer undergoing perioperative FLOT (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 168 patients with histologically confirmed gastric or GEJ cancer who received perioperative FLOT therapy were included. SII was calculated using the formula: SII = (Platelets × Neutrophils)/Lymphocytes. ROC curve analysis determined the optimal SII cutoff for predicting mortality. Patients were categorized into low (SII ≤685) and high (SII >685) groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis and compared via the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: The optimal cutoff value for SII was determined to be 685 (AUC: 0.652, 95% CI: 0.558–0.747, p = 0.003). High SII was significantly shorter OS (17.4 vs. 28.2 months, p = 0.001) Multivariate analysis identified high SII (HR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.36–2.89, p = 0.039), advanced T stage (HR = 3.693, p < 0.001), poor treatment response (HR = 0.36, p < 0.001), and ECOG-PS ≥1 (HR = 3.297, p < 0.001) as independent predictors of mortality. Conclusions: Elevated baseline SII is an independent predictor of worse OS and DFS in gastric and GEJ cancer patients receiving perioperative FLOT chemotherapy. SII may serve as a practical and inexpensive biomarker to support risk stratification and personalized treatment decisions.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of the Naples Prognostic Score (NPS), a composite index of inflammation and nutrition markers, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to assess its role in predicting survival across clinical subgroups. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 250 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2018 and 2023. Patients were categorized into low (≤2) and high (>2) NPS groups based on the scoring system derived from neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte–monocyte ratio (LMR), serum albumin, and total cholesterol levels. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves, log-rank tests, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the discriminatory ability of NPS. Results: Patients with high NPS (>2) had significantly lower overall survival (median OS: 10.4 vs. 18.2 months, p < 0.001) and progression-free survival (median PFS: 7.3 vs. 12.5 months, p < 0.001) than those with low NPS. High NPS was found to be an independent prognostic factor in multivariate Cox regression analysis (HR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.42–2.76, p < 0.001). ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.78 for NPS in predicting survival. Subgroup analyses demonstrated the consistent prognostic impact of high NPS across histological subtypes, TNM stages, smoking status, albumin levels, and age groups. Conclusions: NPS is an independent and practical prognostic tool in NSCLC. Its use may enhance risk stratification and support personalized treatment planning, particularly in advanced-stage patients.

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of the Naples Prognostic Score (NPS), a composite index of inflammation and nutrition markers, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to assess its role in predicting survival across clinical subgroups. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 250 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2018 and 2023. Patients were categorized into low (≤2) and high (>2) NPS groups based on the scoring system derived from neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR), serum albumin, and total cholesterol levels. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the discriminatory ability of NPS. Results: Patients with high NPS (>2) had significantly lower overall survival (median OS: 10.4 vs. 18.2 months, p< 0.001) and progression-free survival (median PFS: 7.3 vs. 12.5 months, p< 0.001) than those with low NPS. High NPS was found to be an independent prognostic factor in multivariate Cox regression analysis (HR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.42–2.76, p< 0.001). ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.78 for NPS in predicting survival. Subgroup analyses demonstrated the consistent prognostic impact of high NPS across histological subtypes, TNM stages, smoking status, albumin levels, and age groups. Conclusion: NPS is an independent and practical prognostic tool in NSCLC. Its use may enhance risk stratification and support personalized treatment planning, particularly in advanced-stage patients.

Aim: Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignancies in men, with high survival rates when detected early, where the tumor is confined to the prostate. However, prognostic factors in elderly patients remain insufficiently defined. Malnutrition, linked to cancer prognosis, highlights the growing importance of nutritional and inflammatory status. The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), based on body weight and serum albumin levels, is a simple tool to assess nutritional status. This study aims to evaluate the prognostic value of the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) and GNRI in elderly patients with early-stage prostate cancer. Methods: This retrospective study included 205 patients aged ≥65 years who were diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer between 2018 and 2024. Patients with metastatic disease, incomplete data, or a prior malignancy were excluded. Nutritional status was evaluated using the PNI and GNRI, calculated from baseline serum albumin, lymphocyte count, and body weight. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression methods. ROC analysis was performed to determine optimal cut-off values for PNI and GNRI. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on age (65-75 and 75-85 years), Gleason score, PSA levels, tumor stage, and radiotherapy status. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 22.0. Results: Among the 205 patients, the median age was 72 years, with 41% aged ≥75. The median PNI and GNRI values were 48.2 and 95.4, respectively. Survival analysis showed that low PNI (< 45) was associated with a median survival of 78 months, while high PNI (≥45) had 115 months (p = 0.015). Similarly, low GNRI (< 92) had a median survival of 74 months, and high GNRI (≥92) had 120 months (p = 0.002). The ROC curve analysis showed AUCs of 0.78 for PNI and 0.84 for GNRI. Subgroup analysis revealed that older age (≥75), Gleason score ≥8, high PSA, and T2 tumor stage were linked to shorter survival. Radiotherapy improved survival (122 vs. 94 months, p = 0.008). Survival decreased with age (65-75 years: 110 months vs. 75-85 years: 85 months, p = 0.005). Gleason score ≥8 and high PSA (≥10 ng/mL) were independent poor prognostic factors (HR = 1.82, p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis confirmed that low PNI and low GNRI were independent risk factors, while radiotherapy, lower PSA, and T1 tumor stage were associated with better outcomes. Conclusion: GNRI and PNI can be considered prognostic markers in elderly patients with early-stage prostate cancer. Advanced age, high Gleason score, and low nutritional indices are associated with a worse prognosis.

Background/Objectives: Enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate are commonly used androgen receptor pathway inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), including after docetaxel. However, real-world outcomes remain heterogeneous, and simple prognostic markers may help describe this variability. This study aimed to describe survival outcomes with enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate after docetaxel and to explore the prognostic value of a routine clinical-inflammatory risk classification. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 136 patients with mCRPC treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate after docetaxel. A composite risk classification was defined using four routinely available variables: pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV) > 457.99, time to castration resistance < 12 months, baseline hemoglobin ≤ 12 g/dL, and Gleason score ≥ 8. One point was assigned for each adverse factor, and patients were classified as low, moderate, or high risk. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox regression. The prognostic score and Cox regression-based nomogram were evaluated as exploratory tools. Results: Of the 136 patients, 8 (5.9%) were classified as low risk, 67 (49.3%) as moderate risk, and 61 (44.9%) as high risk. Median OS was not reached in the low-risk group, compared with 33.84 months in the moderate-risk group and 9.66 months in the high-risk group. In multivariable analysis, high-risk status was independently associated with worse OS (HR = 9.87; 95% CI: 2.38–40.92; p = 0.002). No statistically significant OS difference was observed between enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate in this non-randomized cohort (HR = 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90–2.06; p = 0.142). Conclusions: In this real-world post-docetaxel mCRPC cohort, no statistically significant OS difference was observed between enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate; however, the study was not designed to establish comparative effectiveness or therapeutic equivalence. The exploratory risk classification based on routine clinical and inflammatory variables was associated with distinct survival outcomes. External validation is required before clinical application.