| Literature DB >> 24089602 |
Ji-Feng Feng1, Ying Huang, Qiang Zhao, Qi-Xun Chen.
Abstract
Recent studies have shown that the presence of systemic inflammation correlates with poor survival in various of cancers. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic values of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in patients with small cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE). Preoperative NLR and PLR were evaluated in 43 patients with SCCE from January 2001 to December 2010. The prognostic significance of both markers was then determined by both uni- and multivariate analytical methods. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were also plotted to verify the accuracy of NLR and PLR for survival prediction. Patients with PLR ≥150 had significantly poorer (relapse-free survival) RFS and (overall survival) OS compared to patients with PLR <150. However, RFS or OS did not differ according to NLR categories (<3.5 and ≥3.5). The areas under the curve (AUC) indicated that PLR was superior to NLR as a predictive factor. The results of the present study conclude that PLR is superior to NLR as a predictive factor in patients with SCCE.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24089602 PMCID: PMC3780658 DOI: 10.1155/2013/504365
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
The characteristics of the 43 SCCE patients grouped by NLR and PLR.
| Cases ( | NLR ( |
| PLR ( |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <3.5 | ≥3.5 | <150 | ≥150 | ||||
| Gender | 0.108 | 0.471 | |||||
| Female | 13 (30.2) | 11 | 2 | 10 | 3 | ||
| Male | 30 (69.8) | 16 | 14 | 18 | 12 | ||
| Age (years) | 0.013 | 0.126 | |||||
| ≤60 | 24 (55.8) | 19 | 5 | 18 | 6 | ||
| >60 | 19 (44.2) | 8 | 11 | 10 | 9 | ||
| Tumor length | 0.018 | 0.407 | |||||
| ≤3 | 18 (41.9) | 15 | 3 | 13 | 5 | ||
| >3 | 25 (58.1) | 12 | 13 | 15 | 10 | ||
| Tumor location | 0.847 | 0.856 | |||||
| Upper/middle | 25 (58.1) | 16 | 9 | 16 | 9 | ||
| Lower | 18 (41.9) | 11 | 7 | 12 | 6 | ||
| Vessel involvement | 0.835 | 0.993 | |||||
| Negative | 33 (76.7) | 21 | 12 | 22 | 11 | ||
| Positive | 10 (23.3) | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | ||
| Depth of invasion | 0.278 | 0.139 | |||||
| T1-2 | 18 (41.9) | 13 | 5 | 14 | 4 | ||
| T3-4a | 25 (58.1) | 14 | 11 | 14 | 11 | ||
| Nodal metastasis | 0.018 | 0.408 | |||||
| Negative | 15 (34.9) | 13 | 2 | 11 | 4 | ||
| Positive | 28 (65.1) | 14 | 14 | 17 | 11 | ||
Figure 1Correlation between the NLR and PLR (r = 0.563, P < 0.001).
Figure 2RFS (a) and OS (b) in PLR categories. RFS (c) and OS (d) in NLR categories. Patients with PLR ≥150 had significantly poorer RFS (13.3% versus 25.0%, P = 0.025) (a) and OS (6.7% versus 25.0%, P = 0.007) (b) compared to patients with PLR <150. However, RFS (22.2% versus 18.8%, P = 0.170) (c) and OS (22.2% versus 12.5%, P = 0.161) did not differ according to NLR categories ((c) and (d)).
Univariate and multivariate analyses of RFS in SCCE patients.
| Survival (%) | Chi-square |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.883 | 0.347 | |||
| ≤60 | 20.8 | ||||
| >60 | 21.1 | ||||
| Gender | 0.937 | 0.333 | |||
| Female | 23.1 | ||||
| Male | 20.0 | ||||
| Tumor length (cm) | 3.901 | 0.048 | 0.680 | ||
| ≤3 | 27.8 | 1.000 | |||
| >3 | 16.0 | 1.187 (0.525–2.688) | |||
| Tumor location | 1.775 | 0.183 | |||
| Upper/middle | 32.0 | ||||
| Lower | 5.6 | ||||
| Vessel involvement | 2.122 | 0.145 | |||
| Negative | 24.2 | ||||
| Positive | 10.0 | ||||
| Depth of invasion | 8.439 | 0.004 | 0.255 | ||
| T1-2 | 38.9 | 1.000 | |||
| T3-4a | 8.0 | 1.656 (0.695–3.941) | |||
| Nodal metastasis | 11.376 | 0.001 | 0.019 | ||
| Negative | 40.0 | 1.000 | |||
| Positive | 10.7 | 3.219 (1.216–8.520) | |||
| Chemoradiotherapy | 2.834 | 0.092 | |||
| No | 17.6 | ||||
| Yes | 23.1 | ||||
| NLR | 1.879 | 0.170 | |||
| <3.5 | 22.2 | ||||
| ≥3.5 | 18.8 | ||||
| PLR | 5.027 | 0.025 | 0.083 | ||
| <150 | 25.0 | 1.000 | |||
| ≥150 | 13.3 | 1.999 (0.915–4.367) |
Univariate and multivariate analyses of OS in SCCE patients.
| Survival (%) | Chi-square |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.686 | 0.408 | |||
| ≤60 | 16.7 | ||||
| >60 | 21.1 | ||||
| Gender | 1.841 | 0.175 | |||
| Female | 38.5 | ||||
| Male | 10.0 | ||||
| Tumor length (cm) | 6.846 | 0.009 | 0.627 | ||
| ≤3 | 33.3 | 1.000 | |||
| >3 | 8.0 | 1.229 (0.535–2.821) | |||
| Tumor location | 0.024 | 0.877 | |||
| Upper/middle | 20.0 | ||||
| Lower | 16.7 | ||||
| Vessel involvement | 1.068 | 0.301 | |||
| Negative | 21.2 | ||||
| Positive | 10.0 | ||||
| Depth of invasion | 7.433 | 0.006 | 0.103 | ||
| T1-2 | 33.3 | 1.000 | |||
| T3-4a | 8.0 | 2.032 (0.867–4.766) | |||
| Nodal metastasis | 9.687 | 0.002 | 0.092 | ||
| Negative | 40.0 | 1.000 | |||
| Positive | 7.1 | 2.182 (0.880–5.411) | |||
| Chemoradiotherapy | 5.577 | 0.018 | 0.011 | ||
| No | 5.9 | 1.000 | |||
| Yes | 26.9 | 0.380 (0.180–0.803) | |||
| NLR | 1.967 | 0.161 | |||
| <3.5 | 22.2 | ||||
| ≥3.5 | 12.5 | ||||
| PLR | 7.374 | 0.007 | 0.041 | ||
| <150 | 25.0 | 1.000 | |||
| ≥150 | 6.7 | 2.272 (1.035–4.984) |
Figure 3ROC curves for RFS (a) and OS (b) prediction. ROC curves were plotted to verify the accuracy of NLR and PLR for RFS and OS prediction. The AUC were 0.588 for NLR and 0.694 for PLR according to RFS prediction (a). The AUC were 0.650 for NLR and 0.720 for PLR according to OS prediction (b).