| Literature DB >> 27386948 |
Jun Kasuga1, Takashi Kawahara2,3, Daiji Takamoto4, Sachi Fukui5, Takashi Tokita6, Tomoyuki Tadenuma7, Masaki Narahara8, Syusei Fusayasu9, Hideyuki Terao10, Koji Izumi11, Hiroki Ito1, Yusuke Hattori12, Jun-Ichi Teranishi12, Takeshi Sasaki13, Kazuhide Makiyama1, Yasuhide Miyoshi12, Masahiro Yao1, Yasushi Yumura12, Hiroshi Miyamoto14, Hiroji Uemura12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a simple marker of the systemic inflammatory response, has been demonstrated to correlate with patient outcomes for various solid malignancies. We investigated the utility of the pretreatment NLR as a prognosticator in patients who presented with penile cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Immunohistochemistry; Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; Penile cancer
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27386948 PMCID: PMC4936117 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2443-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1The NLRs in patients with urological diseases. Each value represents the mean and 95 % confidence interval
Patients’ characteristics
| Variables | number or median (mean ± SD) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| all | NLR < 2.82 | NLR ≥ 2.82 | ||
| A number of patients. | 41 (100.0 %) | 21 (51.2 %) | 20 (48.8 %) | |
| Age (years) | 69 (68.5 ± 11.8) | 69 (66.3 ± 10.9) | 71 (70.7 ± 12.5) | 0.243 |
| Location | ||||
| Gland | 30 (73.2 %) | 15 (57.1 %) | 15 (75.0 %) | 0.287 |
| Foreskin | 8 (19.5 %) | 5 (23.8 %) | 3 (15.0 %) | |
| Shaft | 2 (4.9 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (10.0 %) | |
| Unknown | 1 (2.4 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Tumor grade (differentiation) | ||||
| Well | 26 (63.4 %) | 15 (57.1 %) | 11 (55.0 %) | 0.330 |
| Moderate | 10 (24.0 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | 7 (35.0 %) | |
| Poor | 2 (4.9 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | 1 (5.0 %) | |
| Unknown | 3 (7.3 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | 1 (5.0 %) | |
| Pathological T stage | ||||
| 1 | 22 (53.7 %) | 14 (66.7 %) | 8 (40.0 %) | 0.273 |
| 2 | 13 (31.’%) | 4 (19.0 %) | 9 (45.0 %) | |
| 3 | 2 (4.9 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | 1 (5.0 %) | |
| 4 | 3 (7.3 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | 2 (10.0 %) | |
| Unknown | 1 (2.4 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | 9 (21.6 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | 7 (35.0 %) | 0.049 |
| Distant metastasis | 1 (2.4 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 0.323 |
| Anatomic stage | ||||
| I | 17 (41.5 %) | 10 (47.6 %) | 7 (35.0 %) | 0.214 |
| II | 14 (34.1 %) | 8 (38.1 %) | 6 (30.0 %) | |
| III | 3 (7.3 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 3 (15.0 %) | |
| IV | 6 (14.6 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | 4 (20.0 %) | |
| Unknown | 1 (2.4 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
Fig. 2The correlation between the NLR and a cancer-specific survival or b overall survival
Fig. 3Immunohistochemistry of a CD66b and b CD8 in penile cancer specimens. CD66b- and CD8-positive immune cells are seen predominantly in the stromal tissue
Tumor-infiltrating CD66b/CD8-positive immune cells in the penile TMA (PE2081)
| Pathological Grade |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 ( | Grade 2&3 ( | Unknown ( | ||
| CD66b | 15 (23.8 ± 25.5) | 12 (31.8 ± 38.0) | 7.5 (14.4 ± 14.1) | 0.209 |
| CD8 | 62 (58.3 ± 37.1) | 60.5 (56.8 ± 37.5) | 68.5 (59.9 ± 32.0) | 0.898 |
| Anatomic Stage | ||||
| Stage I ( | Stage II & III ( | |||
| CD66b | 16 (28.7 ± 31.2) | 7 (15.9 ± 19.9) | 0.014 | |
| CD8 | 65 (60.0 ± 36.5) | 35 (49.1 ± 38.2) | 0.183 | |
Data represent the median (mean ± SD)