Comparison of Hematologic and Other Prognostic Markers in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.


Journal

Journal of gastrointestinal cancer
ISSN: 1941-6636
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointest Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101479627

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 29 4 2018
medline: 23 1 2020
entrez: 29 4 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Associations of thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, and lymphopenia with prognosis have been confirmed in many cancers. This study aims at comparing various prognostic indices based on blood counts in metastatic colorectal adenocarcinomas. Records from 152 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were treated in our center were reviewed. Demographic and disease characteristics and hematologic parameters data were extracted and patients were stratified according to their scores of several hematologic ratios. Hematologic ratios and parameters considered included the platelet-neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (PNLR), the platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the Abnormal Hematological Markers Index (AHMI), and the neutrophil-platelet score (NPS). Optimal cutoffs were defined with the aid of an online tool. Baseline parameters of the two groups derived for each tool were evaluated and compared with the χ Progression-Free Survival (PFS) hazard ratios (HR) between the high-risk and low-risk groups derived from the multivariate analyses for each index were as follows: for PNLR 2.0 (95% CI 1.28-3.13), for PLR 1.74 (95% CI 1.13-2.67), for NLR 1.54 (95% CI 1.04-2.29), for AHMI 1.62 (95% CI 1.06-2.46), and for NPS 1.47 (95% CI 1.1-1.96). Overall Survival (OS) hazard ratios (HR) derived from the multivariate analyses for each index were as follows: for PNLR 2.23 (95% CI 1.36-3.66), for PLR 1.68 (95% CI 1.03-2.75), for NLR 1.62 (95% CI 1.06-2.49), for AHMI 1.7 (95% CI 1.07-2.69), and for NPS 1.53 (95% CI 1.11-2.11). Another prognostic index called PRONOPALL, which is based on ECOG PS (0-1 versus 2-3 versus 4), number of metastatic sites (≤ 1 versus ≥ 2), LDH (< 600 U/L versus ≥ 600 U/L), and albumin (≥ 33 g/L versus < 33 g/L), had HRs of 1.75 and 2.20 for PFS and OS, respectively, with a cutoff of < 4 versus ≥ 4. This score has a range of 0 to 10 and points are attributed for the presence of each of the four prognostic factors. In this analysis of metastatic colorectal cancer patients, several ratios and other prognostic tools had prognostic value for both OS and PFS. While other variables held significance for poorer prognosis, PNLR had the highest HR and the highest significance in multivariate analysis for both PFS and OS. Thus, it represents a valid prognostic tool in metastatic colorectal cancer among the spectrum of hematologic parameter-constructed tools.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Associations of thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, and lymphopenia with prognosis have been confirmed in many cancers. This study aims at comparing various prognostic indices based on blood counts in metastatic colorectal adenocarcinomas.
PATIENTS AND METHODS METHODS
Records from 152 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were treated in our center were reviewed. Demographic and disease characteristics and hematologic parameters data were extracted and patients were stratified according to their scores of several hematologic ratios. Hematologic ratios and parameters considered included the platelet-neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (PNLR), the platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the Abnormal Hematological Markers Index (AHMI), and the neutrophil-platelet score (NPS). Optimal cutoffs were defined with the aid of an online tool. Baseline parameters of the two groups derived for each tool were evaluated and compared with the χ
RESULTS RESULTS
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) hazard ratios (HR) between the high-risk and low-risk groups derived from the multivariate analyses for each index were as follows: for PNLR 2.0 (95% CI 1.28-3.13), for PLR 1.74 (95% CI 1.13-2.67), for NLR 1.54 (95% CI 1.04-2.29), for AHMI 1.62 (95% CI 1.06-2.46), and for NPS 1.47 (95% CI 1.1-1.96). Overall Survival (OS) hazard ratios (HR) derived from the multivariate analyses for each index were as follows: for PNLR 2.23 (95% CI 1.36-3.66), for PLR 1.68 (95% CI 1.03-2.75), for NLR 1.62 (95% CI 1.06-2.49), for AHMI 1.7 (95% CI 1.07-2.69), and for NPS 1.53 (95% CI 1.11-2.11). Another prognostic index called PRONOPALL, which is based on ECOG PS (0-1 versus 2-3 versus 4), number of metastatic sites (≤ 1 versus ≥ 2), LDH (< 600 U/L versus ≥ 600 U/L), and albumin (≥ 33 g/L versus < 33 g/L), had HRs of 1.75 and 2.20 for PFS and OS, respectively, with a cutoff of < 4 versus ≥ 4. This score has a range of 0 to 10 and points are attributed for the presence of each of the four prognostic factors.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
In this analysis of metastatic colorectal cancer patients, several ratios and other prognostic tools had prognostic value for both OS and PFS. While other variables held significance for poorer prognosis, PNLR had the highest HR and the highest significance in multivariate analysis for both PFS and OS. Thus, it represents a valid prognostic tool in metastatic colorectal cancer among the spectrum of hematologic parameter-constructed tools.

Identifiants

pubmed: 29704170
doi: 10.1007/s12029-018-0108-1
pii: 10.1007/s12029-018-0108-1
doi:

Substances chimiques

Albumins 0
Biomarkers, Tumor 0
Carcinoembryonic Antigen 0
L-Lactate Dehydrogenase EC 1.1.1.27

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

493-506

Références

Blood. 2001 Nov 1;98(9):2720-5
pubmed: 11675343
Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Nov 1;10(21):7252-9
pubmed: 15534099
Oncogene. 2008 Oct 6;27(45):5904-12
pubmed: 18836471
Am J Pathol. 2009 Oct;175(4):1699-708
pubmed: 19729481
Cancer Res. 2009 Oct 1;69(19):7775-83
pubmed: 19738039
Cancer Cell. 2011 Nov 15;20(5):576-90
pubmed: 22094253
Int J Cancer. 2012 Jun 15;130(12):2747-60
pubmed: 22261860
N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 16;366(7):610-8
pubmed: 22335738
J Cell Sci. 2012 Dec 1;125(Pt 23):5591-6
pubmed: 23420197
Int J Breast Cancer. 2013;2013:289563
pubmed: 23864954
Int J Cancer. 2014 May 15;134(10):2403-13
pubmed: 24122750
World J Surg Oncol. 2014 Feb 12;12:37
pubmed: 24520974
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014 Feb 15;6(2):34-40
pubmed: 24567794
Semin Oncol. 2014 Apr;41(2):174-84
pubmed: 24787291
Cancer Microenviron. 2015 Dec;8(3):125-58
pubmed: 24895166
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 03;10(9):e0136752
pubmed: 26336064
Oncotarget. 2016 Jan 5;7(1):1014-28
pubmed: 26510910
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 06;10(11):e0142159
pubmed: 26544968
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jan;25(1):16-27
pubmed: 26667886
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan 21;374(3):211-22
pubmed: 26789870
J Immunol Res. 2015;2015:983698
pubmed: 26819959
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Apr;199:16-20
pubmed: 26894377
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jun;95(24):e3837
pubmed: 27310960
Anticancer Res. 2016 Nov;36(11):5607-5622
pubmed: 27793883
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017 Jan 15;9(1):42-49
pubmed: 28144399
Oncol Lett. 2017 Feb;13(2):1000-1006
pubmed: 28356991
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 10;35(17):1929-1937
pubmed: 28414610
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(7):1612-1617
pubmed: 28472235
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018 Jun;9(3):478-486
pubmed: 29998013

Auteurs

Joey Mercier (J)

Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Division of Clinical Sciences, Sudbury, ON, Canada.

Ioannis A Voutsadakis (IA)

Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Division of Clinical Sciences, Sudbury, ON, Canada. ivoutsadakis@yahoo.com.
Algoma District Cancer Program, Sault Area Hospital, 750 Great Northern Road, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, P6B 0A8, Canada. ivoutsadakis@yahoo.com.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH