| Literature DB >> 33906632 |
Weihao Kong1, Mingwei Yang2, Jianfeng Zhang3, Ya Cheng1, Tianxing Dai3, Jian Zhang3,4, Guoying Wang5,6, Jianlin Zhang7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As is well recognized that inflammation plays a crucial role in the genesis and progression of various cancer. Here we investigate the prognostic value of a novel index: the combination of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and platelet distribution width (coNLR-PDW) in post-operation patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Entities:
Keywords: Liver cancer; Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; Platelet distribution width; Prognosis
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33906632 PMCID: PMC8077869 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08153-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of NLR and PDW in training cohort. a: NLR is represented by the blue line, the optimal cutoff value is 1.59, and the area under the curve (AUC) is 0.592. b: PDW is represented by the blue line. Similarly, the optimal cutoff value is 13.0, and the AUC is 0.629. Notes: NLR: Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PDW: Platelet distribution width
Correlation between coNLR-PDW and clinicopathological features or hematological parameters
| Variables | Number of patients | co NLR-PDW 0 | co NLR-PDW 1 | co NLR-PDW 2 | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, < 60/≥60 years | 194/56 | 31/11 | 108/35 | 55/10 | 0.281 |
| Gender, male/female | 225/25 | 36/6 | 129/14 | 60/5 | 0.536 |
| HBsAg, negative/positive | 29/221 | 5/37 | 17/126 | 7/58 | 0.971 |
| Cirrhosis, no/yes | 79/171 | 21/21 | 42/99 | 16/44 | |
| Tumor size, ≤5/> 5 cm | 137/113 | 31/11 | 69/74 | 37/28 | |
| Tumor number, single/multiple | 179/71 | 32/10 | 99/44 | 48/17 | 0.609 |
| AFP, < 400/≥400 ng/ml | 170/80 | 26/16 | 98/45 | 46/19 | 0.617 |
| Vascular invasion, no/yes | 146/104 | 28/14 | 77/66 | 41/24 | 0.225 |
| Child-Pugh grade, A/B | 235/15 | 41/1 | 137/6 | 57/8 | |
| BCLC, 0-A/ B-C | 19/79/48/104 | 23/19 | 50/93 | 25/40 | 0.069 |
| Differentiation, well moderate/poor | 41/189/20 | 40/2 | 130/13 | 60/5 | 0.658 |
| PT (s) | 13.6 (12.9–14.2) | 13.4 (12.7–14.1) | 13.6 (13.0–14.4) | 13.5 (13.1–14.2) | 0.143 |
| ALT (U/L) | 38.0 (26.0–52.3) | 35.0 (22.5–46.5) | 40.0 (27.8–57.5) | 39.0 (26.0–50.0) | 0.093 |
| TB (umol/L) | 14.7 (10.7–18.3) | 13.9 (9.8–16.0) | 14.3 (10.8–18.2) | 15.8 (12.4–20.5) | |
| GGT (U/L) | 60.5 (37.0–117.5) | 49.0 (26.0–98.0) | 64.5 (38.0–119.5) | 70.0 (43.0–135.0) | 0.055 |
| ALB (g/L) | 40.0 ± 4.2 | 40.3 ± 3.7 | 39.5 ± 4.1 | 41.0 ± 4.6 | 0.053 |
| MPV (Fl) | 10.6 (9.9–11.2) | 9.8 (9.4–10.2) | 10.6 (10.0–11.2) | 11.2 (10.8–11.6) |
Notes: AFP alpha fetoprotein, BCLC Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, PT prothrombin time, ALT Alanine transaminase, TB total bilirubin, GGT gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, ALB albumin, MPV mean platelet volume, coNLR-PDW combination of NLR and PDW
Fig. 2OS and DFS curves for patients with whole resectable HCC patients. a: Overall survival curves of the whole cohort. b: Disease-free survival curves of the whole cohort. Notes: OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma
Fig. 3OS and DFS curves stratified by coNLR-PDW score in training HCC cohort. a: Patients with higher coNLR-PDW score had poorer OS (P < 0.0001). b: Patients with higher coNLR-PDW score had poorer DFS (P < 0.0001). Notes: OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma
Fig. 4OS and DFS curves stratified by coNLR-PDW for AFP and BCLC stage subgroup in training HCC cohort. Notes: OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; NLR: Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PDW: Platelet distribution width; AFP: alpha fetoprotein; BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma
Univariate and multivariate analyses for OS in training cohort
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p | Hazard ratio | 95%confidence interval | p | Hazard ratio | 95%confidence interval | |
| Age (years)(≥60 versus < 60) | 0.066 | 0.380 | 0.136–1.065 | |||
| Gender (female versus male) | 0.783 | 0.865 | 0.308–2.431 | |||
| HBsAg (yes versus no) | 0.184 | 2.621 | 0.633–10.850 | |||
| Cirrhosis (yes versus no) | 0.652 | 1.153 | 0.621–2.140 | |||
| Tumor size(> 5 versus ≤5) | ||||||
| Tumor number (multiple versus single) | 0.087 | 1.726 | 0.924–3.223 | |||
| AFP(≥400 versus < 400) | ||||||
| Vascular invasion (yes versus no) | ||||||
| Child-Pugh grade (B versus A) | 0.351 | 0.389 | 0.053–2.828 | |||
| BCLC Stage(B + C versus 0 + A) | ||||||
| Differentiation (poor versus well/moderate) | 0.285 | 1.666 | 0.653–4.247 | |||
| PT (≥13.7 versus < 13.7) | 0.094 | 0.578 | 0.304–1.099 | |||
| ALT (≥ 34 versus < 34) | – | |||||
| TB (≥12.5 versus < 12.5) | 0.230 | 0.688 | 0.373–1.268 | |||
| GGT (≥49 versus < 49) | ||||||
| ALB (≥39.0 versus < 39.0) | 0.201 | 1.548 | 0.792–3.028 | |||
| MPV (≥11.2 versus < 11.2) | 0.424 | 1.300 | 0.684–2.470 | |||
| co NLR-PDW | ||||||
Notes: AFP alpha fetoprotein, BCLC Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, PT prothrombin time, ALT Alanine transaminase, TB total bilirubin, GGT gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, ALB albumin, MPV mean platelet volume, coNLR-PDW combination of NLR and PDW, OS overall survival
Univariate and multivariate analyses for DFS in training cohort
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p | Hazard ratio | 95%confidence interval | p | Hazard ratio | 95%confidence interval | |
| Age (years)(≥60 versus < 60) | 0.355 | 0.819 | 0.537–1.250 | |||
| Gender (female versus male) | 0.437 | 0.783 | 0.422–1.452 | |||
| HBsAg (yes versus no) | 0.345 | 1.306 | 0.750–2.274 | |||
| Cirrhosis (yes versus no) | 0.405 | 1.154 | 0.823–1.618 | |||
| Tumor size (> 5 versus ≤5) | ||||||
| Tumor number (multiple versus single) | ||||||
| AFP(≥400 versus < 400) | ||||||
| Vascular invasion (yes versus no) | ||||||
| Child-Pugh grade (B versus A) | 0.067 | 1.746 | 0.963–3.166 | |||
| BCLC Stage(B + C versus 0 + A) | ||||||
| Differentiation (poor versus well/moderate) | 0.112 | 1.568 | 0.900–2.730 | |||
| PT (≥13.7 versus < 13.7) | 0.326 | 0.841 | 0.595–1.188 | |||
| ALT (≥ 34 versus < 34) | 0.100 | 1.347 | 0.944–1.920 | |||
| TB (≥12.5 versus < 12.5) | 0.889 | 1.026 | 0.719–1.463 | |||
| GGT (≥49 versus < 49) | ||||||
| ALB (≥39.0 versus < 39.0) | 0.437 | 0.871 | 0.616–1.233 | |||
| MPV (≥11.2 versus < 11.2) | 0.228 | 1.257 | 0.867–1.822 | |||
| co NLR-PDW | ||||||
Notes: AFP alpha fetoprotein, BCLC Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, PT prothrombin time, ALT Alanine transaminase, TB total bilirubin, GGT gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, ALB albumin, MPV mean platelet volume, coNLR-PDW combination of NLR and PDW, DFS disease free survival
Fig. 5Comparison of the predictive value among different combinations for OS (a) and DFS (b) in training cohort. Notes: OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival