Y Zhang1,2, C Jiang2, J Li3, J Sun1, X Qu4. 1. Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, No. 107, Wen Hua Xi Road, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Pathology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, School of Medicine, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266011, Shandong, China. 3. Central Laboratory, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, School of Medicine, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266011, Shandong, China. 4. Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, No. 107, Wen Hua Xi Road, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, People's Republic of China. xunqu0809@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were immune response-related indicators. Preoperative NLR and PLR had been considered to be related to the prognosis of various cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of NLR and PLR in patients with gallbladder carcinoma (GBC). METHODS: From 2001 to 2013, 145 patients with GBC were recruited in this retrospective study. Cutoff values of NLR and PLR were determined by receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). The correlation of clinical data, including tumor differentiation, nevin stage, TNM stage, operation margin, operation mode, NLR, PLR, hemoglobin, C reactive protein (CRP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and carbohydrate antigen 199 (CA199) with median survival period of patients was analyzed by univariate survival analysis. The multivariate prognosis analysis was performed to select the independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: The cutoff values of NLR and PLR were 1.94 and 113.34, respectively. Compared with low NLR and low PLR group, the 5-year survival rates in high NLR and high PLR group were reduced (P < 0.05). The degree of tumor differentiation, nevin stage, TNM stage, operation mode, NLR, PLR, CA199, total bilirubin, CRP and CEA were associated with the median survival period of patients (P < 0.01). The multivariate prognosis analysis showed that NLR, nevin stage, operation mode and hemoglobin were independent prognostic factors (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Preoperative NLR and PLR were closely related to prognosis of patients with GBC and might be useful for the evaluation of prognosis of patients with GBC.
PURPOSE: Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were immune response-related indicators. Preoperative NLR and PLR had been considered to be related to the prognosis of various cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of NLR and PLR in patients with gallbladder carcinoma (GBC). METHODS: From 2001 to 2013, 145 patients with GBC were recruited in this retrospective study. Cutoff values of NLR and PLR were determined by receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). The correlation of clinical data, including tumor differentiation, nevin stage, TNM stage, operation margin, operation mode, NLR, PLR, hemoglobin, C reactive protein (CRP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and carbohydrate antigen 199 (CA199) with median survival period of patients was analyzed by univariate survival analysis. The multivariate prognosis analysis was performed to select the independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: The cutoff values of NLR and PLR were 1.94 and 113.34, respectively. Compared with low NLR and low PLR group, the 5-year survival rates in high NLR and high PLR group were reduced (P < 0.05). The degree of tumor differentiation, nevin stage, TNM stage, operation mode, NLR, PLR, CA199, total bilirubin, CRP and CEA were associated with the median survival period of patients (P < 0.01). The multivariate prognosis analysis showed that NLR, nevin stage, operation mode and hemoglobin were independent prognostic factors (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Preoperative NLR and PLR were closely related to prognosis of patients with GBC and might be useful for the evaluation of prognosis of patients with GBC.
Authors: Jean M Butte; Kenichi Matsuo; Mithat Gönen; Michael I D'Angelica; Enrique Waugh; Peter J Allen; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Leslie Blumgart; Itaru Endo; Hernán De La Fuente; William R Jarnagin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Mariusz Adamek; Aleksandra Kawczyk-Krupka; Aleksandra Mostowy; Zenon Czuba; Wojciech Krol; Slawomir Kasperczyk; Marek Jakobisiak; Jakub Golab; Aleksander Sieron Journal: Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.631
Authors: Arnoud J Templeton; Olga Ace; Mairéad G McNamara; Mustafa Al-Mubarak; Francisco E Vera-Badillo; Thomas Hermanns; Boštjan Seruga; Alberto Ocaña; Ian F Tannock; Eitan Amir Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: S P K Jagdev; W Gregory; N S Vasudev; P Harnden; S Sim; D Thompson; J Cartledge; P J Selby; R E Banks Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Rebecca Kassubek; Lars Bullinger; Jan Kassubek; Jens Dreyhaupt; Albert C Ludolph; Katharina Althaus; Jan Lewerenz Journal: J Neurol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Eliza W Beal; Lai Wei; Cecilia G Ethun; Sylvester M Black; Mary Dillhoff; Ahmed Salem; Sharon M Weber; Thuy Tran; George Poultsides; Andre Y Son; Ioannis Hatzaras; Linda Jin; Ryan C Fields; Stefan Buettner; Timothy M Pawlik; Charles Scoggins; Robert C G Martin; Chelsea A Isom; Kamron Idrees; Harveshp D Mogal; Perry Shen; Shishir K Maithel; Carl R Schmidt Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 3.647