Ilaria Lucca1,2, Michela de Martino1, Sebastian L Hofbauer1, Nura Zamani1, Shahrokh F Shariat1, Tobias Klatte3. 1. Department of Urology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Urology, Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Department of Urology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. tobias.klatte@gmx.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pretreatment measurements of systemic inflammatory response, including the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) have been recognized as prognostic factors in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), but there is at present no study that compared these markers. METHODS: We evaluated the pretreatment GPS, NLR, MLR, PLR and PNI in 430 patients, who underwent surgery for clinically localized CCRCC (pT1-3N0M0). Associations with disease-free survival were assessed with Cox models. Discrimination was measured with the C-index, and a decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical net benefit. RESULTS: On multivariable analyses, all measures of systemic inflammatory response were significant prognostic factors. The increase in discrimination compared with the stage, size, grade and necrosis (SSIGN) score alone was 5.8 % for the GPS, 1.1-1.4 % for the NLR, 2.9-3.4 % for the MLR, 2.0-3.3 % for the PLR and 1.4-3.0 % for the PNI. On the simultaneous multivariable analysis of all candidate measures, the final multivariable model contained the SSIGN score (HR 1.40, P < 0.001), the GPS (HR 2.32, P < 0.001) and the MLR (HR 5.78, P = 0.003) as significant variables. Adding both the GPS and the MLR increased the discrimination of the SSIGN score by 6.2 % and improved the clinical net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clinically localized CCRCC, the GPS and the MLR appear to be the most relevant prognostic measures of systemic inflammatory response. They may be used as an adjunct for patient counseling, tailoring management and clinical trial design.
PURPOSE: Pretreatment measurements of systemic inflammatory response, including the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) have been recognized as prognostic factors in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), but there is at present no study that compared these markers. METHODS: We evaluated the pretreatment GPS, NLR, MLR, PLR and PNI in 430 patients, who underwent surgery for clinically localized CCRCC (pT1-3N0M0). Associations with disease-free survival were assessed with Cox models. Discrimination was measured with the C-index, and a decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical net benefit. RESULTS: On multivariable analyses, all measures of systemic inflammatory response were significant prognostic factors. The increase in discrimination compared with the stage, size, grade and necrosis (SSIGN) score alone was 5.8 % for the GPS, 1.1-1.4 % for the NLR, 2.9-3.4 % for the MLR, 2.0-3.3 % for the PLR and 1.4-3.0 % for the PNI. On the simultaneous multivariable analysis of all candidate measures, the final multivariable model contained the SSIGN score (HR 1.40, P < 0.001), the GPS (HR 2.32, P < 0.001) and the MLR (HR 5.78, P = 0.003) as significant variables. Adding both the GPS and the MLR increased the discrimination of the SSIGN score by 6.2 % and improved the clinical net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clinically localized CCRCC, the GPS and the MLR appear to be the most relevant prognostic measures of systemic inflammatory response. They may be used as an adjunct for patient counseling, tailoring management and clinical trial design.
Authors: Gal Wald; Kerri T Barnes; Megan T Bing; Timothy P Kresowik; Ann Tomanek-Chalkley; Tamara A Kucaba; Thomas S Griffith; James A Brown; Lyse A Norian Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Michela de Martino; Tobias Klatte; Christoph Seemann; Matthias Waldert; Andrea Haitel; Georg Schatzl; Mesut Remzi; Peter Weibl Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Sabine Brookman-May; Matthias May; Vincenzo Ficarra; Manuela Christine Kainz; Karin Kampel-Kettner; Stephanie Kohlschreiber; Valentina Wenzl; Meike Schneider; Maximilian Burger; Wolf F Wieland; Wolfgang Otto; Derya Tilki; Christian Gilfrich; Markus Hohenfellner; Sascha Pahernik; Thomas F Chromecki; Christian Stief; Richard Zigeuner Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-08-19 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: M Pichler; G C Hutterer; C Stoeckigt; T F Chromecki; T Stojakovic; S Golbeck; K Eberhard; A Gerger; S Mannweiler; K Pummer; R Zigeuner Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Alaina Garbens; Christopher J D Wallis; Georg Bjarnason; Girish S Kulkarni; Avery B Nathens; Robert K Nam; Raj Satkunasivam Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: William P Parker; John C Cheville; Igor Frank; Harras B Zaid; Christine M Lohse; Stephen A Boorjian; Bradley C Leibovich; R Houston Thompson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Murat Uçar; Sedat Soyupek; Taylan Oksay; Alper Özorak; Ali Akkoç; Murat Topçuoğlu; Murat Demir; Alim Koşar Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.460