Yen-Chen Cheng1, Chun-Nung Huang2,3, Wen-Jeng Wu2,3,4,5,6,7, Ching-Chia Li2,3,4,8, Hung-Lung Ke2,3,4, Wei-Ming Li2,3,4,9, Hung-Pin Tu10, Chien-Feng Li11,12,13, Lin-Li Chang4,14, Hsin-Chih Yeh15,16,17,18. 1. School of Post-Baccalaureate Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2. Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 3. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 4. Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 5. Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Hsiao-Kang Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 6. Center for Infectious Disease and Cancer Research, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 7. Center for Stem Cell Research, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 8. Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 9. Department of Urology, Ministry of Health and Welfare Pingtung Hospital, Pingtung, Taiwan. 10. Department of Public Health and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 11. Department of Pathology, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan. 12. Department of Biotechnology, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Tainan, Taiwan. 13. National Institute of Cancer Research, National Health Research Institutes, Tainan, Taiwan. 14. Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 15. Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. patrick1201.tw@yahoo.com.tw. 16. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. patrick1201.tw@yahoo.com.tw. 17. Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. patrick1201.tw@yahoo.com.tw. 18. Department of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. patrick1201.tw@yahoo.com.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammation-related parameters based on blood cells, including white blood cell (WBC) count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, platelet count, and red cell distribution width (RDW), have been shown to be associated with prognosis in many cancers. However, no previous study evaluated these inflammation-associated markers simultaneously in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). METHODS: A total of 195 patients with UTUC who received radical nephroureterectomy between 2005 and 2010 were included retrospectively as the derivation cohort to investigate the impact of inflammation markers on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). In turn, another independent set of 225 patients were used for validation. Finally, we performed survival analysis in the combined cohort consisting of 420 UTUC patients. RESULTS: The predictive value of RDW and WBC count on outcome was replicable in different cohorts. Multivariate analysis showed high RDW was independently associated with poor OS (P < 0.001), and WBC count was a significant prognosticator for both OS and CSS (both P < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, we found the prognostic significance of RDW for OS was limited in organ-confined disease (≤pT2 without pN+). More importantly, a clear survival difference can be demonstrated by combining RDW and WBC count with other known prognostic factors in the risk stratification model. CONCLUSIONS: RDW and WBC count have the advantage of their common accessibility and are useful markers to predict outcome of UTUC in the preoperative setting. RDW and WBC count could provide additional prognostic value and help physicians identify patients at high risk for mortality and formulate individualized treatment strategy.
BACKGROUND:Inflammation-related parameters based on blood cells, including white blood cell (WBC) count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, platelet count, and red cell distribution width (RDW), have been shown to be associated with prognosis in many cancers. However, no previous study evaluated these inflammation-associated markers simultaneously in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). METHODS: A total of 195 patients with UTUC who received radical nephroureterectomy between 2005 and 2010 were included retrospectively as the derivation cohort to investigate the impact of inflammation markers on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). In turn, another independent set of 225 patients were used for validation. Finally, we performed survival analysis in the combined cohort consisting of 420 UTUC patients. RESULTS: The predictive value of RDW and WBC count on outcome was replicable in different cohorts. Multivariate analysis showed high RDW was independently associated with poor OS (P < 0.001), and WBC count was a significant prognosticator for both OS and CSS (both P < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, we found the prognostic significance of RDW for OS was limited in organ-confined disease (≤pT2 without pN+). More importantly, a clear survival difference can be demonstrated by combining RDW and WBC count with other known prognostic factors in the risk stratification model. CONCLUSIONS: RDW and WBC count have the advantage of their common accessibility and are useful markers to predict outcome of UTUC in the preoperative setting. RDW and WBC count could provide additional prognostic value and help physicians identify patients at high risk for mortality and formulate individualized treatment strategy.
Authors: Aurélie Mbeutcha; Morgan Rouprêt; Ashish M Kamat; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Giacomo Novara; Jay D Raman; Christian Seitz; Evanguelos Xylinas; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Aurélie Mbeutcha; Romain Mathieu; Morgan Rouprêt; Kilian M Gust; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2016-10