Xiaorui Wang1,2, Weipeng Zhao1,2, Lihong He1,2, Shuling Wang1,2, Weidong Li3,2, Jing Wang4,2, Zhongsheng Tong1,2. 1. Department of Breast Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer prevention and Therapy Tianjin 300060, China. 2. Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy Tianjin 300060, China. 3. Department of Breast Pathology and Research Laboratoy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer prevention and Therapy Tianjin 300060, China. 4. Department of Radiotherapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer prevention and Therapy Tianjin 300060, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To explore the clinical value of dNLR and TILS in the prognostic diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) and the efficacy evaluation of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: From January 2012 to January 2014, 72 patients with BC who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in our hospital were selected for this study and analyzed retrospectively. The clinical value of dNLR and TILS in the prognosis of BC was observed, and the clinical data of the patients were collected for Cox regression analysis to observe their independent prognostic indicators. According to the clinical efficacy of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, patients were divided into effective group (EG) (CR+PR) and invalid group (IG) (SD+PD), and the value of dNLR and TILS in the therapeutic effect of patients was observed. RESULTS: After therapy, there were 10 cases of CR, 44 cases of PR, 13 cases of SD and 5 cases of PD in 72 patients. With the improvement of curative effect, the expression of dNLR was gradually declined (P < 0.05). The less effective the patients were, the less TILS positive rate was (P < 0.05). However, the expression of dNLR in the EG was obviously lower than that in the IG (P < 0.05). The area under dNLR curve was 0.844, while the area under TILS curve was 0.618. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that TNM staging, dNLR and TILS were independent prognostic factors that affected the patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with high expression of dNLR and TILS-negative BC have poor efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and dNLR and TILS can be used as prognostic observation indexes for BC. AJTR
BACKGROUND: To explore the clinical value of dNLR and TILS in the prognostic diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) and the efficacy evaluation of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: From January 2012 to January 2014, 72 patients with BC who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in our hospital were selected for this study and analyzed retrospectively. The clinical value of dNLR and TILS in the prognosis of BC was observed, and the clinical data of the patients were collected for Cox regression analysis to observe their independent prognostic indicators. According to the clinical efficacy of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, patients were divided into effective group (EG) (CR+PR) and invalid group (IG) (SD+PD), and the value of dNLR and TILS in the therapeutic effect of patients was observed. RESULTS: After therapy, there were 10 cases of CR, 44 cases of PR, 13 cases of SD and 5 cases of PD in 72 patients. With the improvement of curative effect, the expression of dNLR was gradually declined (P < 0.05). The less effective the patients were, the less TILS positive rate was (P < 0.05). However, the expression of dNLR in the EG was obviously lower than that in the IG (P < 0.05). The area under dNLR curve was 0.844, while the area under TILS curve was 0.618. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that TNM staging, dNLR and TILS were independent prognostic factors that affected the patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with high expression of dNLR and TILS-negative BC have poor efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and dNLR and TILS can be used as prognostic observation indexes for BC. AJTR
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702