Literature DB >> 29242558

The NLR and LMR ratio in newly diagnosed MM patients treated upfront with novel agents.

Alessandra Romano1, Nunziatina Laura Parrinello2, Claudio Cerchione3, Maria Letizia Consoli2, Marina Parisi4,2, Valeria Calafiore4,2, Enrica Martino4,2, Concetta Conticello2, Francesco Di Raimondo4,2, Giuseppe Alberto Palumbo2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29242558      PMCID: PMC5802528          DOI: 10.1038/s41408-017-0019-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood Cancer J        ISSN: 2044-5385            Impact factor:   11.037


× No keyword cloud information.
Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most frequent hematological neoplasia, characterized by the accumulation of malignant plasma cells within the marrow microenvironment leading to variable anemia, bone pain, renal impairment, hypercalcemia and infections. Virtually all cases of MM arise from monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS), associated to a deep re-shape of the microenvironment and T-cell function. In MGUS, T-cells isolated from the bone marrow are able of mounting vigorous response against autologous pre-malignant cells while this phenomenon is not observed in MM[1]. Indeed, in MM the immune function is impaired as consequence of an immunologically hostile microenvironment and cellular defects[2]. MM plasma cells are able of immune editing through reduction of immune-surveillance, and expansion of myeloid derived suppressor cells as recently described in MM patients both at diagnosis and during chemotherapy[3, 4]. Several groups, including ours, identified NLR (the ratio between absolute neutrophils counts, ANC and absolute lymphocyte count, ALC) and LMR (the ratio between absolute lymphocyte counts, ALC and absolute monocyte count, AMC), as predictor of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with hematological cancers[5, 6], including MM[7-9], as surrogate of a defective immune system. Several studies have searched for prognostic biomarkers before treatment start to choice the type and intensity of initial treatment. Recently, it has been proposed that the International Staging System should be associated to FISH results but the latter are not always available at diagnosis to address a tailored therapy[10]. We have shown that the combination of ISS with NLR is able to predict outcome in patients treated up-front with novel agents[8]. Indeed, NLR-ISS could identify patients that could benefit of single-novel agent based treatment and our results also confirm those recently published in another series that included patients treated with either novel agents (VMP, MPT) or older schemes (MP, VAD)[7]. It has published that NLR > 2 can be considered a bad prognostic factor for both PFS and OS in MM, as previously noticed in myeloma[8] and lymphoma[6]. We read with interest the analysis recently reported by Dosani et al. highlighting a LMR ratio < 3.6 as predictor of PFS and OS, also in patients with adverse cytogenetics, to stratify patients based on their baseline immune status[11]. Thus, we reviewed files of 208 consecutively newly-diagnosed MM patients followed at our institution between January 2006 and June 2013, enrolled in observational or phase 3 clinical trials active in our Institutions (GIMEMA MMY-3006, RV-MM-PI209) for patients eligible to high-doses chemotherapy. Details on treatment regimens and final or ongoing results of these studies have previously been reported[8]. All studies were approved by our Institutional Review Board. Patients provided written informed consent before entering the studies, which were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. In all patients, complete blood count (CBC) and routine biochemical examinations were taken on every visit. White blood cell count and types (neutrophil, lymphocyte, eosinophil, and monocyte) were determined by electrical impedance method in automatic blood counter device (Beckman Coulter LH 750). NLR and LMR were calculated using data obtained from the CBC count. Baseline characteristics of evaluated patients are listed in Supplementary Table 1, based on NLR and LMR cut-offs respectively of 2 and 3.6 as previously published[8, 11]. Median age was 58 (range 31–66), 35% of patients were in stage III according to ISS classification. Cytogenetics was available for 199 (95%) patients, and it was adverse (del 17p or t (4;14)) in 13% of cases. Both high NLR and low LMR were associated to adverse FISH (Supplementary Table 1). Induction regimens included bortezomib associated to dexamethasone (VD), thalidomide and dexamethasone associated or not to bortezomib (TD, VTD) accordingly to the GIMEMA MMY-3006 trial, or lenalidomide and dexamethasone, accordingly to the GIMEMA RV-MM-PI209[8]. Thus, 63% received bortezomib alone or in combination (23% in combination with IMiDs), 60% received lenalidomide or thalidomide alone or in combination, 95% patients underwent to single or double autologous stem cell transplantation as consolidation therapy. MM patients were divided in three groups based on the treatment received: regimen containing only proteasome inhibitor (group 1, N = 84) or IMiDs (group 2, N = 77) or both (group 3, N = 47). PFS was evaluated accordingly to Kaplan-Meier method. Descriptive statistics were generated for analysis of results and p-value under 0.05 was considered significant. Qualitative results were summarized in counts or percentages. Data were plotted as mean ± standard error mean or using boxes and whiskers at 5–95° percentile. Association among variables was evaluated by linear regression. Data were elaborated using GraphPad Prism version 6.00 for Windows, GraphPad Software, San Diego California USA, www.graphpad.com or MedCalc Version 12.3.0.0. After a median follow up of 36 months, patients with NLR ≥ 2 had shorter PFS than patients with NLR < 2 (22.8 vs. 39.7 months, p = 0.025, Fig. 1a). Similarly, patients with LMR < 3.6 had shorter PFS than those with LMR ≥ 3.6 (18.5 vs. 40.5 months, p = 0.0003, Fig. 1b). Although ISS alone had a weak prognostic meaning in our series (p = 0.30, Fig. 1c), we tested if NLR or LMR could improve ISS.
Fig. 1

PFS in newly diagnosed MM treated upfront with novel agents

PFS based on NLR a, LMR b or ISS c at diagnosis. PFS in the cohort of patients treated upfront with bortezomib-based d, lenalidomide- e or both f is shown based on LMR at diagnosis

PFS in newly diagnosed MM treated upfront with novel agents

PFS based on NLR a, LMR b or ISS c at diagnosis. PFS in the cohort of patients treated upfront with bortezomib-based d, lenalidomide- e or both f is shown based on LMR at diagnosis As reported in Table 1, high NLR could discriminate prognosis in ISS stage I patients, while low LMR could predict inferior outcome in ISS-II/III patients. In multivariate analysis, predictors of PFS were LMR, ANC and absolute monocytes count as continuous variables (Supplementary Table 2), while LMR < 3.6 was independent from NLR.
Table 1

Progression free survival based on NLR, LMR, and ISS status

ISSPFS in monthsNLR status N PFS in months p-valueLMR status N PFS in months p-value
Stage 1 N = 5446.2NLR <22764.3 0.0003 LMR >3.64247.90.63
NLR ≥22720.7LMR ≤3.61227.5
Stage 2 N = 7728.3NLR <24028.30.71LMR >3.65337 0.04
NLR ≥23727.5LMR ≤3.62418.2
Stage 3 N = 7728NLR <243310.74LMR >3.65633.4 0.012
NLR ≥23422.1LMR ≤3.62118.5
Progression free survival based on NLR, LMR, and ISS status Since there was no difference in PFS in the three different treatment groups, and our previous work showed that NLR was predictor of outcome only in patients treated with lenalidomide or thalidomide, we tested if LMR was able to predict outcome independently from treatment used. Despite low numbers of this monocentric study, LMR < 3.6 was associated to inferior outcome in all groups of treatment, included the double combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (Fig. 1 d-f). Our findings confirm the results of Dosani et al [22] and indicate that NLR and LMR could have a different biological meaning since they do not correlate each other and have a prognostic value in different subpopulation of patients. This difference is probably linked to the different role of neutrophils and monocytes in the complex network of the bone marrow microenvironment that supports myeloma growth and is further supported by the finding that neutrophils and monocytes counts are independent prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. Thus, we confirm NLR and LMR as predictors of PFS in MM patients treated upfront with novel agents; this information could be integrated with FISH and molecular evaluations to personalise the treatment in younger patients. Patients with NLR ≥ 2 or LMR < 3.6 should be addressed to regimens containing both proteasome inhibitor and IMiDs. Integration of NLR and LMR to more detailed molecular data could result in a meaningful prognostic system that needs to be further validated. Supplemental Tables
  11 in total

1.  Early interim 2-(1)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to peripheral blood lymphocyte/monocyte ratio at diagnosis in classical Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Authors:  Alessandra Romano; Calogero Vetro; Daniela Donnarumma; Stefano Forte; Massimo Ippolito; Francesco Di Raimondo
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.941

2.  Predicting survival for multiple myeloma patients using baseline neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio.

Authors:  Engin Kelkitli; Hilmi Atay; Fatih Cilingir; Nil Güler; Yüksel Terzi; Düzgün Ozatlı; Mehmet Turgut
Journal:  Ann Hematol       Date:  2013-12-14       Impact factor: 3.673

3.  Predicting survival for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients using baseline neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio.

Authors:  Luis F Porrata; Kay Ristow; Thomas Habermann; David J Inwards; Ivana N Micallef; Svetomir N Markovic
Journal:  Am J Hematol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 10.047

4.  Combining fluorescent in situ hybridization data with ISS staging improves risk assessment in myeloma: an International Myeloma Working Group collaborative project.

Authors:  H Avet-Loiseau; B G M Durie; M Cavo; M Attal; N Gutierrez; J Haessler; H Goldschmidt; R Hajek; J H Lee; O Sezer; B Barlogie; J Crowley; R Fonseca; N Testoni; F Ross; S V Rajkumar; P Sonneveld; J Lahuerta; P Moreau; G Morgan
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 11.528

5.  Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) improves the risk assessment of ISS staging in newly diagnosed MM patients treated upfront with novel agents.

Authors:  A Romano; N L Parrinello; M L Consoli; L Marchionni; S Forte; C Conticello; A Pompa; A Corso; G Milone; F Di Raimondo; I Borrello
Journal:  Ann Hematol       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 3.673

6.  Bone marrow PMN-MDSCs and neutrophils are functionally similar in protection of multiple myeloma from chemotherapy.

Authors:  Indu R Ramachandran; Thomas Condamine; Cindy Lin; Sarah E Herlihy; Alfred Garfall; Dan T Vogl; Dmitry I Gabrilovich; Yulia Nefedova
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 8.679

7.  Significance of the absolute lymphocyte/monocyte ratio as a prognostic immune biomarker in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Authors:  T Dosani; F Covut; R Beck; J J Driscoll; M de Lima; E Malek
Journal:  Blood Cancer J       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 11.037

8.  Granulocyte-like myeloid derived suppressor cells (G-MDSC) are increased in multiple myeloma and are driven by dysfunctional mesenchymal stem cells (MSC).

Authors:  Cesarina Giallongo; Daniele Tibullo; Nunziatina L Parrinello; Piera La Cava; Michelino Di Rosa; Vincenzo Bramanti; Cosimo Di Raimondo; Concetta Conticello; Annalisa Chiarenza; Giuseppe A Palumbo; Roberto Avola; Alessandra Romano; Francesco Di Raimondo
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-12-27

9.  A reversible defect in natural killer T cell function characterizes the progression of premalignant to malignant multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Madhav V Dhodapkar; Matthew D Geller; David H Chang; Kanako Shimizu; Shin-Ichiro Fujii; Kavita M Dhodapkar; Joseph Krasovsky
Journal:  J Exp Med       Date:  2003-06-09       Impact factor: 14.307

Review 10.  Immunological dysregulation in multiple myeloma microenvironment.

Authors:  Alessandra Romano; Concetta Conticello; Maide Cavalli; Calogero Vetro; Alessia La Fauci; Nunziatina Laura Parrinello; Francesco Di Raimondo
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.411

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Aging-associated immune system changes in multiple myeloma: The dark side of the moon.

Authors:  Alissa Visram; Taxiarchis V Kourelis
Journal:  Cancer Treat Res Commun       Date:  2021-11-20

2.  Combined immune score of lymphocyte to monocyte ratio and immunoglobulin levels predicts treatment-free survival of multiple myeloma patients after autologous stem cell transplant.

Authors:  Karen Sweiss; Jonathan Lee; Nadim Mahmud; Gregory S Calip; Youngmin Park; Dolores Mahmud; Damiano Rondelli; Pritesh R Patel
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 5.483

3.  Plasticity of High-Density Neutrophils in Multiple Myeloma is Associated with Increased Autophagy Via STAT3.

Authors:  Fabrizio Puglisi; Nunziatina Laura Parrinello; Cesarina Giallongo; Daniela Cambria; Giuseppina Camiolo; Claudia Bellofiore; Concetta Conticello; Vittorio Del Fabro; Valerio Leotta; Uros Markovic; Giuseppe Sapienza; Alessandro Barbato; Silvia Scalese; Daniele Tibullo; Maria Violetta Brundo; Giuseppe Alberto Palumbo; Francesco Di Raimondo; Alessandra Romano
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  Prognostic Value of Peripheral Inflammatory Markers in Preoperative Mucosal Melanoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Yixi Wang; Hao Zhang; Yuhan Yang; Tao Zhang; Xuelei Ma
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Prognostic Significance Of The Inflammatory Index-Based Scoring System In Patients Preliminarily Diagnosed With Multiple Myeloma In The Bortezomib-Based Chemotherapy Era.

Authors:  Siwei Liu; Jie Shi; Honggang Guo; Fangfang Xu; Min Wei; Kai Sun; Yuqing Chen
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 6.  The Neutrophil to Lymphocyte and Lymphocyte to Monocyte Ratios as New Prognostic Factors in Hematological Malignancies - A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Paulina Stefaniuk; Agnieszka Szymczyk; Monika Podhorecka
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-04-29       Impact factor: 3.989

7.  High-density neutrophils in MGUS and multiple myeloma are dysfunctional and immune-suppressive due to increased STAT3 downstream signaling.

Authors:  A Romano; N L Parrinello; V Simeon; F Puglisi; P La Cava; C Bellofiore; C Giallongo; G Camiolo; F D'Auria; V Grieco; F Larocca; A Barbato; D Cambria; E La Spina; D Tibullo; G A Palumbo; C Conticello; P Musto; F Di Raimondo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 8.  Mechanisms of Immune Evasion in Multiple Myeloma: Open Questions and Therapeutic Opportunities.

Authors:  Cirino Botta; Francesco Mendicino; Enrica Antonia Martino; Ernesto Vigna; Domenica Ronchetti; Pierpaolo Correale; Fortunato Morabito; Antonino Neri; Massimo Gentile
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  Immunomodulatory Drugs Alter the Metabolism and the Extracellular Release of Soluble Mediators by Normal Monocytes.

Authors:  Ida Marie Rundgren; Anita Ryningen; Tor Henrik Anderson Tvedt; Øystein Bruserud; Elisabeth Ersvær
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 4.411

Review 10.  Actors on the Scene: Immune Cells in the Myeloma Niche.

Authors:  Patrizia Leone; Antonio Giovanni Solimando; Eleonora Malerba; Rossella Fasano; Alessio Buonavoglia; Fabrizio Pappagallo; Valli De Re; Antonella Argentiero; Nicola Silvestris; Angelo Vacca; Vito Racanelli
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.