Hematologic markers of distant metastases and poor prognosis in gynecological cancers.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biomarkers, Tumor
Blood Platelets
/ pathology
Cell Count
Endometrial Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Female
Humans
Lymphocytes
/ pathology
Middle Aged
Monocytes
/ pathology
Neoplasm Metastasis
Neoplasm Staging
Neutrophils
/ pathology
Ovarian Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Survival Analysis
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Young Adult
Gynecological cancer. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio. Distant metastases. Survival
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Feb 2019
12 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
25
05
2018
accepted:
28
01
2019
entrez:
14
2
2019
pubmed:
14
2
2019
medline:
27
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite the recent progress in the development of anti-cancer drugs, the treatment of metastatic tumors is usually ineffective. The systemic inflammatory response performs key roles in different stages of the carcinogenesis process including metastasis. The high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were found to be associated with poor survival rates in the majority of solid tumors. However, only a few studies were conducted to further investigate this association in patients with advanced gynecological cancers. Clinical data from 264 patients with FIGO stage III and IV gynecological (endometrial, ovarian and cervical) cancers treated at King Hussein Cancer Center (Amman-Jordan) from 2006 to 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. We examined the association between absolute neutrophil count (ANC), absolute monocyte count (AMC), MLR, PLR, and NLR with distant metastases, overall survival and event-free survival in gynecological cancers. For survival analysis, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was operated to determine the optimal cutoff values. Patients with high baseline NLR (≥4.1) had more baseline distant metastases than patients with low baseline NLR (< 4.1), (p-value 0.045). Patients with high baseline AMC (≥560) had more distant metastases in comparison to patients with low baseline AMC (< 560), (p-value 0.040). Furthermore, Patients with high baseline PLR (≥0.3) had more distant metastases in comparison to patients with low baseline PLR (< 0.3), (p-value 0.025). Additionally, patients with high baseline ANC (≥5700) had worse overall survival compared to the patients with low baseline ANC (< 5700), (p-value 0.015). Also, patients with high baseline AMC (≥490) had worse overall survival compared to the patients with low baseline AMC (< 490), (p-value 0.044). Different hematologic markers obtained from a cheap test (CBC) could potentially be used to predict the presence of distant metastases thus used as prognostic indices in gynecological cancers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite the recent progress in the development of anti-cancer drugs, the treatment of metastatic tumors is usually ineffective. The systemic inflammatory response performs key roles in different stages of the carcinogenesis process including metastasis. The high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were found to be associated with poor survival rates in the majority of solid tumors. However, only a few studies were conducted to further investigate this association in patients with advanced gynecological cancers.
METHODS
METHODS
Clinical data from 264 patients with FIGO stage III and IV gynecological (endometrial, ovarian and cervical) cancers treated at King Hussein Cancer Center (Amman-Jordan) from 2006 to 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. We examined the association between absolute neutrophil count (ANC), absolute monocyte count (AMC), MLR, PLR, and NLR with distant metastases, overall survival and event-free survival in gynecological cancers. For survival analysis, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was operated to determine the optimal cutoff values.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Patients with high baseline NLR (≥4.1) had more baseline distant metastases than patients with low baseline NLR (< 4.1), (p-value 0.045). Patients with high baseline AMC (≥560) had more distant metastases in comparison to patients with low baseline AMC (< 560), (p-value 0.040). Furthermore, Patients with high baseline PLR (≥0.3) had more distant metastases in comparison to patients with low baseline PLR (< 0.3), (p-value 0.025). Additionally, patients with high baseline ANC (≥5700) had worse overall survival compared to the patients with low baseline ANC (< 5700), (p-value 0.015). Also, patients with high baseline AMC (≥490) had worse overall survival compared to the patients with low baseline AMC (< 490), (p-value 0.044).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Different hematologic markers obtained from a cheap test (CBC) could potentially be used to predict the presence of distant metastases thus used as prognostic indices in gynecological cancers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30755184
doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5326-9
pii: 10.1186/s12885-019-5326-9
pmc: PMC6373103
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
141Références
Angiogenesis. 2003;6(4):283-7
pubmed: 15166496
J Leukoc Biol. 2006 Dec;80(6):1183-96
pubmed: 16997855
J Clin Invest. 2007 May;117(5):1137-46
pubmed: 17476343
Adv Clin Chem. 2008;45:199-223
pubmed: 18429498
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Oct 15;15(20):6412-20
pubmed: 19825961
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2010 Jun;41(2):116-20
pubmed: 20127292
Cell. 2010 Mar 19;140(6):883-99
pubmed: 20303878
Cell. 2010 Apr 2;141(1):39-51
pubmed: 20371344
Biomarkers. 2010 Sep;15(6):516-22
pubmed: 20602543
Tumour Biol. 2011 Apr;32(2):317-24
pubmed: 21052888
J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 20;29(15):1949-55
pubmed: 21483002
J Urol. 2012 Feb;187(2):411-7
pubmed: 22177153
Urology. 2012 May;79(5):1085-91
pubmed: 22446338
Crit Rev Oncog. 2013;18(1-2):43-73
pubmed: 23237552
Br J Cancer. 2013 Apr 30;108(8):1677-83
pubmed: 23558897
Br J Cancer. 2013 Jul 23;109(2):416-21
pubmed: 23799847
Int J Cancer. 2014 May 15;134(10):2403-13
pubmed: 24122750
Surg Oncol. 2014 Mar;23(1):31-9
pubmed: 24378193
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Med Oncol. 2014 Dec;31(12):305
pubmed: 25355641
Nat Rev Immunol. 2015 Feb;15(2):73-86
pubmed: 25614318
Dig Surg. 2015;32(6):496-503
pubmed: 26544755
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30
pubmed: 26742998
Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):358-64
pubmed: 26924770
J Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Jul;27(4):e43
pubmed: 27171673
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jun;95(24):e3837
pubmed: 27310960
Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 07;6:38585
pubmed: 27924837
Cancer Immunol Res. 2017 Feb;5(2):94-99
pubmed: 28093447
FEBS J. 2018 Feb;285(4):665-679
pubmed: 28834401
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2018 Mar 28;:null
pubmed: 29589285
Am J Med. 1981 Nov;71(5):773-8
pubmed: 7304648
Cancer. 1996 Apr 1;77(7):1303-10
pubmed: 8608507
Circulation. 1998 Nov 24;98(21):2307-13
pubmed: 9826319