Romain Boissier1, Jennifer Campagna2, Nicolas Branger3, Gilles Karsenty2, Eric Lechevallier2. 1. Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France; Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, APHM, Conception University Hospital, Marseille, France. Electronic address: Romain.Boissier@ap-hm.fr. 2. Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France; Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, APHM, Conception University Hospital, Marseille, France. 3. Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France; Department of Urology, APHM, North University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a biological marker of inflammation with a significant prognostic value in the field of oncology. AIM: In this review, we discuss the prognostic value of the NLR in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted a literature review of the PubMed database in August 2016. Initial research identified 31 publications. Following full-text screening, 15 studies were finally included: 7 studies concerning metastatic or locally advanced renal cancer, 6 studies dealing with localized renal cancer, 2 articles evaluating the NLR in renal cancer whatever the status of the disease (metastatic or localized). RESULTS: For localized RCC, an NLR o 3 was predictive of a reduced risk of recurrence (hazard ratio ¼ 1.63 [1.15, 2.29]). The prognostic value of the NLR was stronger for metastatic or locally advanced RCC. An NLR o 3 predicted increased overall survival (hazard ratio ¼ 1.55 [1.36, 1.76]), progression-free survivals (hazard ratio ¼ 3.19 [2.23, 4.57]), and a response to systemic treatment. CONCLUSION: In current practice, the NLR is a simple and inexpensive prognostic factor with potential improvement in the prognostic performance of nomograms used in renal oncology.
BACKGROUND: The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a biological marker of inflammation with a significant prognostic value in the field of oncology. AIM: In this review, we discuss the prognostic value of the NLR in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted a literature review of the PubMed database in August 2016. Initial research identified 31 publications. Following full-text screening, 15 studies were finally included: 7 studies concerning metastatic or locally advanced renal cancer, 6 studies dealing with localized renal cancer, 2 articles evaluating the NLR in renal cancer whatever the status of the disease (metastatic or localized). RESULTS: For localized RCC, an NLR o 3 was predictive of a reduced risk of recurrence (hazard ratio ¼ 1.63 [1.15, 2.29]). The prognostic value of the NLR was stronger for metastatic or locally advanced RCC. An NLR o 3 predicted increased overall survival (hazard ratio ¼ 1.55 [1.36, 1.76]), progression-free survivals (hazard ratio ¼ 3.19 [2.23, 4.57]), and a response to systemic treatment. CONCLUSION: In current practice, the NLR is a simple and inexpensive prognostic factor with potential improvement in the prognostic performance of nomograms used in renal oncology.
Authors: Nicholas J Farber; Christopher J Kim; Parth K Modi; Jane D Hon; Evita T Sadimin; Eric A Singer Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.241
Authors: Roy Mano; Jessica Flynn; Kyle A Blum; Andrew W Silagy; Renzo G DiNatale; Julian Marcon; Alan Wang; Alejandro Sanchez; Jonathan A Coleman; Paul Russo; Irina Ostrovnaya; A Ari Hakimi Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Charles C Peyton; E Jason Abel; Juan Chipollini; David C Boulware; Mounsif Azizi; Jose A Karam; Vitaly Margulis; Viraj A Master; Surena F Matin; Jay D Raman; Wade J Sexton; Christopher G Wood; Philippe E Spiess Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2018-09-08
Authors: Aly-Khan A Lalani; Wanling Xie; Dylan J Martini; John A Steinharter; Craig K Norton; Katherine M Krajewski; Audrey Duquette; Dominick Bossé; Joaquim Bellmunt; Eliezer M Van Allen; Bradley A McGregor; Chad J Creighton; Lauren C Harshman; Toni K Choueiri Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Sara Elena Rebuzzi; Alessio Signori; Giuseppe Luigi Banna; Marco Maruzzo; Ugo De Giorgi; Paolo Pedrazzoli; Andrea Sbrana; Paolo Andrea Zucali; Cristina Masini; Emanuele Naglieri; Giuseppe Procopio; Sara Merler; Laura Tomasello; Lucia Fratino; Cinzia Baldessari; Riccardo Ricotta; Stefano Panni; Veronica Mollica; Maria Sorarù; Matteo Santoni; Alessio Cortellini; Veronica Prati; Hector Josè Soto Parra; Marco Stellato; Francesco Atzori; Sandro Pignata; Carlo Messina; Marco Messina; Franco Morelli; Giuseppe Prati; Franco Nolè; Francesca Vignani; Alessia Cavo; Giandomenico Roviello; Francesco Pierantoni; Chiara Casadei; Melissa Bersanelli; Silvia Chiellino; Federico Paolieri; Matteo Perrino; Matteo Brunelli; Roberto Iacovelli; Camillo Porta; Sebastiano Buti; Giuseppe Fornarini Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 8.168