Evidence Hub

The CALLY Index as a Predictive Tool for Postoperative Pneumonia in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Zhi-Yun Xu, Chen Chen, Jian-Qiang Zhao, Chenglin Li, Bao Zang, Xinkui Xiong

Journal of Inflammation Research, 2025

209 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Background Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma poses a significant global health challenge, with postoperative pneumonia being a critical complication affecting recovery and prognosis. Traditional predictive models have proven to be insufficient. This study investigates the CALLY Index as a novel tool for predicting postoperative pneumonia in resectable ESCC patients. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 209 patients undergoing thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown procedure for resectable ESCC from January 2019 to December 2022. Patients with chronic pulmonary diseases or previous malignancies were excluded. Clinical data, including age, gender, tumor stage, preoperative albumin, lymphocyte counts, and CRP levels, were analyzed to calculate the CALLY Index. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of postoperative pneumonia, and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the CALLY Index’s predictive validity. Results Among the cohort, 63.8% of patients with low CALLY Index scores developed postoperative pneumonia compared to 12.1% with high scores (p < 0.001). The optimal cutoff for the CALLY Index was determined to be 3.47, achieved sensitivity of 0.721 and specificity of 0.865. In multivariate analyses, the CALLY Index remained a strong predictor of pneumonia (adj. OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.51–0.77, p < 0.001). Notably, higher tumor stage and prolonged hospital stays were also…

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: 209 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