Shu-Hui Lv1,2,3, Wang-Zhong Li1,2, Hu Liang1,2, Guo-Ying Liu1,2, Wei-Xiong Xia1,2, Yan-Qun Xiang1,2. 1. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China. 2. Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China. 3. Medical Affairs Office, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to assess the prognostic and predictive value of a circulating inflammation signature (CISIG) and develop CISIG-based tools for predicting prognosis and guiding individualized induction chemotherapy (ICT) in non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected a candidate inflammatory biomarker panel from patients with NPC treated with definitive radiotherapy between 2012 and 2017. We developed the CISIG using candidate biomarkers identified by a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression model. The Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the CISIG prognostic value. A CISIG-based prediction model was constructed, validated, and assessed. Potential stratified ICT treatment effects were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1149 patients were analyzed. Nine biomarkers selected by LASSO regression in the training cohort were used to construct the CISIG, including hyaluronidase, laminin, procollagen III, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, high-density lipoprotein, lactate dehydrogenase, and C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio. CISIG was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (DFS; hazard ratio: 2.65, 95% confidence interval: 1.93-3.64; P < 0.001). High CISIG group (>-0.2) was associated with worse 3-year DFS than low CISIG group in both the training (67.5% vs 88.3%, P < 0.001) and validation cohorts (72.3% vs 85.1%, P < 0.001). We constructed and validated a CISIG-based nomogram, which showed better performance than the clinical stage and Epstein-Barr virus DNA classification methods. A significant interaction between CISIG and the ICT treatment effect was observed (P for interaction = 0.036). Patients with high CISIG values did not benefit from ICT, whereas patients with low CISIG values significantly benefited from ICT. CONCLUSION: The developed CISIG, based on a circulating inflammatory biomarker panel, adds prognostic information for patients with NPC. The proposed CISIG-based tools offer individualized risk estimation to facilitate suitable ICT candidate identification.
PURPOSE: We sought to assess the prognostic and predictive value of a circulating inflammation signature (CISIG) and develop CISIG-based tools for predicting prognosis and guiding individualized induction chemotherapy (ICT) in non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected a candidate inflammatory biomarker panel from patients with NPC treated with definitive radiotherapy between 2012 and 2017. We developed the CISIG using candidate biomarkers identified by a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression model. The Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the CISIG prognostic value. A CISIG-based prediction model was constructed, validated, and assessed. Potential stratified ICT treatment effects were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1149 patients were analyzed. Nine biomarkers selected by LASSO regression in the training cohort were used to construct the CISIG, including hyaluronidase, laminin, procollagen III, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, high-density lipoprotein, lactate dehydrogenase, and C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio. CISIG was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (DFS; hazard ratio: 2.65, 95% confidence interval: 1.93-3.64; P < 0.001). High CISIG group (>-0.2) was associated with worse 3-year DFS than low CISIG group in both the training (67.5% vs 88.3%, P < 0.001) and validation cohorts (72.3% vs 85.1%, P < 0.001). We constructed and validated a CISIG-based nomogram, which showed better performance than the clinical stage and Epstein-Barr virus DNA classification methods. A significant interaction between CISIG and the ICT treatment effect was observed (P for interaction = 0.036). Patients with high CISIG values did not benefit from ICT, whereas patients with low CISIG values significantly benefited from ICT. CONCLUSION: The developed CISIG, based on a circulating inflammatory biomarker panel, adds prognostic information for patients with NPC. The proposed CISIG-based tools offer individualized risk estimation to facilitate suitable ICT candidate identification.
Authors: Daniel T T Chua; Jun Ma; Jonathan S T Sham; Hai-Qiang Mai; Damon T K Choy; Ming-Huang Hong; Tai-Xiang Lu; Hua-Qing Min Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-01-18 Impact factor: 44.544