ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Prognostic value of the C-PLAN index in patients with advanced esophageal cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite significant advancements in immunotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer, there remains a critical need for reliable biomarkers to predict long-term clinical outcomes. The C-PLAN index, a novel composite score integrating C-Reactive Protein (CRP), lymphocyte dynamics, nutritional risk, and the Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), was developed to serve as a potential prognostic tool in this setting.
methodsThis study included 228 patients with advanced esophageal cancer who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors between January 2018 and March 2023. Patients were stratified into low-risk (score ≤ 2), Medium-risk (score 3-4), or high-risk (score ≥ 5) groups based on the C-PLAN index. Clinical outcomes, including Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS), were assessed over a 24-month follow-up period. Nonlinear associations between the C-PLAN index and OS/PFS were evaluated using restricted cubic splines. Cox proportional hazards models identified independent prognostic factors for OS, while time-dependent Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves compared the predictive accuracy of the C-PLAN index with that of NLR.
resultsOf the 228 patients enrolled, 189 were included in the final analysis. Significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed across risk groups: low-risk patients exhibited higher Body Mass Index (BMI) and albumin levels, whereas high-risk patients had larger tumor sizes, elevated CRP, Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH), NLR, and C-PLAN scores. The median PFS was significantly longer in the low-risk group compared with intermediate- and high-risk groups (p < 0.001). A significant nonlinear relationship between the C-PLAN index and both OS and PFS was observed (p for nonlinearity < 0.001). Multivariable analysis identified NLR, poorly differentiated histology, and the C-PLAN index as independent predictors of mortality. Time-dependent ROC analyses revealed that the C-PLAN index demonstrated superior predictive accuracy compared to NLR at both 12-months (Area Under the Curve [AUC], 0.710 vs. 0.496) and 24-months (AUC, 0.897 vs. 0.740).
conclusionThe C-PLAN index provides a robust and clinically meaningful prognostic tool for patients with advanced esophageal cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Its superior predictive performance compared to traditional markers such as NLR highlights its potential utility in risk stratification and guiding treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.