Evidence Hub

Pretreatment CALLY index as promising novel biomarker in the prediction of surgical and oncological outcomes in esophageal cancer: a multi-center retrospective cohort study

Peize Meng, Tongtong Gu, Jia-Yong Xu, Hai-Hua Huang, Hansong Jin, Yuchen Wang, Hang Zhang, Zheng Ruan

Frontiers in Immunology, 2025

657 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

Background Esophageal cancer (EC) is a global health challenge with high mortality rates. The traditional TNM staging system is limited in its ability to provide accurate prognostic predictions. This study aimed to investigate the utility of the C-reactive protein-albumin-lymphocyte (CALLY) index in the evaluation of mid- to long-term outcomes in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Methods We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study of 657 EC patients admitted between 2010 to 2024, with 553 patients from Shanghai General Hospital (training cohort) and 104 from Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital (validation cohort). Associations between the CALLY and overall survival (OS)/disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses. Results Patients with CALLY index > 2.55 were associated with significantly improved OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.71) and DFS (HR: 0.51, 0.40-0.65), independent of clinical risk factors. Incorporating CALLY index into clinical prediction models significantly enhanced discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] of OS: 0.719-0.752; AUROC of DFS: 0.745-0.788, P 2.55 were associated with significantly reduced risk of recurrence. Conclusions The CALLY index emerges as a cost-effective prognostic tool integrating inflammation-nutrition-immunity parameters. Its preoperative integration with tumor, node, and metastasis…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 657 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free