Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and chemotherapy response score as prognostic markers in ovarian cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Journal
Journal of ovarian research
ISSN: 1757-2215
Titre abrégé: J Ovarian Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101474849
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2021
01 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
30
06
2021
accepted:
13
10
2021
entrez:
2
11
2021
pubmed:
3
11
2021
medline:
4
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) is the recommended approach in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). However, most patients eventually relapse despite the initial high response rate to chemotherapy. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a well-known biomarker that reflects severe inflammation, critical illness, and mortality in various diseases. Chemotherapy response score (CRS) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) have been identified as potential biomarkers of platinum resistance and disease prognosis. We retrospectively evaluated 132 patients with stage IIIc or IV ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer who had received NACT followed by IDS from 01/01/2003 to 31/12/2018. CRS was assessed on omental specimens collected from IDS according to ICCR guidelines. Median age was 64.57 years (SD: 9.72; range 39.2-87.1). Most ovarian tumors were serous epithelial (90.9%; 120/132). An elevated NLR (defined as > 3) was observed in 72% (95/132) of patients in contrast with 28% (37/132) of patients characterized by low NLR status. Median PFS (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were 13.05 months (95% CI: 11.42-14.67)) and 34.69 months (95% CI: 23.26-46.12) respectively. In univariate analysis, CRS3 score was significantly associated with prolonged mPFS (CRS1/2: 12.79 months vs CRS3: 17.7 months; P = 0.008). CRS score was not associated with mOS (P = 0.876). High NLR was not significantly associated with mPFS (P = 0.128), however it was significantly associated with poor mOS (P = 0.012). In multivariate analysis, only performance of surgery maintained its statistical significance with both PFS (P = 0.001) and OS (P = 0.008). NLR could serve as a useful predictor of OS but not PFS in ovarian cancer patients receiving NACT. In accordance with our previous study, CRS score at omentum was found to be associated with PFS but not OS in ovarian cancer patients treated with NACT and IDS. Biomarkers that would predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer patients are eagerly needed:• Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) is an indicator of systemic inflammatory response to the malignancy.• NLR was evaluated in 132 patients undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer.• Elevated NLR was associated with worse prognosis.• No association between NLR and response to chemotherapy was noted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) is the recommended approach in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). However, most patients eventually relapse despite the initial high response rate to chemotherapy. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a well-known biomarker that reflects severe inflammation, critical illness, and mortality in various diseases. Chemotherapy response score (CRS) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) have been identified as potential biomarkers of platinum resistance and disease prognosis. We retrospectively evaluated 132 patients with stage IIIc or IV ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer who had received NACT followed by IDS from 01/01/2003 to 31/12/2018. CRS was assessed on omental specimens collected from IDS according to ICCR guidelines.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Median age was 64.57 years (SD: 9.72; range 39.2-87.1). Most ovarian tumors were serous epithelial (90.9%; 120/132). An elevated NLR (defined as > 3) was observed in 72% (95/132) of patients in contrast with 28% (37/132) of patients characterized by low NLR status. Median PFS (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were 13.05 months (95% CI: 11.42-14.67)) and 34.69 months (95% CI: 23.26-46.12) respectively. In univariate analysis, CRS3 score was significantly associated with prolonged mPFS (CRS1/2: 12.79 months vs CRS3: 17.7 months; P = 0.008). CRS score was not associated with mOS (P = 0.876). High NLR was not significantly associated with mPFS (P = 0.128), however it was significantly associated with poor mOS (P = 0.012). In multivariate analysis, only performance of surgery maintained its statistical significance with both PFS (P = 0.001) and OS (P = 0.008).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
NLR could serve as a useful predictor of OS but not PFS in ovarian cancer patients receiving NACT. In accordance with our previous study, CRS score at omentum was found to be associated with PFS but not OS in ovarian cancer patients treated with NACT and IDS.
Biomarkers that would predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer patients are eagerly needed:• Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) is an indicator of systemic inflammatory response to the malignancy.• NLR was evaluated in 132 patients undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer.• Elevated NLR was associated with worse prognosis.• No association between NLR and response to chemotherapy was noted.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Biomarkers that would predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer patients are eagerly needed:• Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) is an indicator of systemic inflammatory response to the malignancy.• NLR was evaluated in 132 patients undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer.• Elevated NLR was associated with worse prognosis.• No association between NLR and response to chemotherapy was noted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34724958
doi: 10.1186/s13048-021-00902-0
pii: 10.1186/s13048-021-00902-0
pmc: PMC8561989
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
148Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Nov;28(9):1676-1682
pubmed: 30256239
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Sep;64:22-31
pubmed: 27323348
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jan 16;348(3):203-13
pubmed: 12529460
Onco Targets Ther. 2020 Jul 27;13:7283-7293
pubmed: 32848410
Histopathology. 2020 Jan;76(1):93-101
pubmed: 31846531
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019 May;38(3):230-240
pubmed: 29750700
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2020 Jan;63(1):55-63
pubmed: 31970128
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Nov;151(2):264-268
pubmed: 30197060
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Nov;12(12):1169-74
pubmed: 21742554
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 May 29;106(6):dju124
pubmed: 24875653
Scand J Immunol. 2008 Sep;68(3):328-36
pubmed: 18565119
Clin Transl Oncol. 2011 Jul;13(7):499-503
pubmed: 21775277
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2017;38(3):444-448
pubmed: 29693888
J Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;23(4):265-73
pubmed: 23094130
N Engl J Med. 1995 Mar 9;332(10):629-34
pubmed: 7845426
N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2;363(10):943-53
pubmed: 20818904
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Jun;157(3):599-605
pubmed: 32173048
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 Jan;148(1):102-106
pubmed: 31571212
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Jun;28(5):939-944
pubmed: 29538251
Am J Surg Pathol. 2020 Feb;44(2):206-213
pubmed: 31651523
Oncotarget. 2017 Jul 11;8(28):46414-46424
pubmed: 28423365
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2018 Mar;61(2):227-234
pubmed: 29564313
J Exp Med. 2019 Jan 7;216(1):176-194
pubmed: 30567719
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Apr;99(14):e19638
pubmed: 32243392
J Cancer. 2018 Mar 8;9(7):1165-1172
pubmed: 29675097
Int J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb;23(1):104-113
pubmed: 28951992
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2009 Jan;58(1):15-23
pubmed: 18414853
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 May;27(4):708-713
pubmed: 28441251
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Mar;132(3):542-50
pubmed: 24462730
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016 Aug 25;2:16061
pubmed: 27558151
Mol Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar;3(2):317-321
pubmed: 25798260
BMC Cancer. 2020 Mar 4;20(1):185
pubmed: 32131779
Mol Cancer. 2017 Aug 15;16(1):137
pubmed: 28810877
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Feb;29(2):353-356
pubmed: 30683759
J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;28(6):e73
pubmed: 28758379
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Jan 1;17:1533033818791500
pubmed: 30145940
Surg Oncol. 2020 Sep;34:40-45
pubmed: 32891351
J Clin Lab Anal. 2019 May;33(4):e22833
pubmed: 30666724
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;211(6):632.e1-8
pubmed: 24954656
J Cancer. 2016 Jan 29;7(3):289-96
pubmed: 26918042
ESMO Open. 2016 Mar 31;1(2):e000039
pubmed: 27843595
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jul;150(1):31-37
pubmed: 29751991
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(16):6881-5
pubmed: 25169540
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2017 Mar;36(2):172-179
pubmed: 27362902
Mod Pathol. 2015 Aug;28(8):1101-22
pubmed: 26089092
Pathologica. 2019 Jun;111(2):62-66
pubmed: 31388197
Oncol Rep. 2009 Sep;22(3):605-13
pubmed: 19639211
Hum Pathol. 2007 Jun;38(6):926-34
pubmed: 17397905
Ann Oncol. 2012 Sep;23 Suppl 10:x111-7
pubmed: 22987944
Clin Dev Immunol. 2010;2010:791603
pubmed: 21318181
Front Oncol. 2019 Aug 19;9:778
pubmed: 31482065
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jun;145(3):584-594
pubmed: 28222899
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Aug;154(2):441-448
pubmed: 31118141
Immunol Invest. 2017 Oct;46(7):677-688
pubmed: 28872976
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 23;10(1):18190
pubmed: 33097745
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 23;13(8):e0202555
pubmed: 30138391
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Nov;147(2):212-218
pubmed: 31469423
Cell. 2010 Mar 19;140(6):883-99
pubmed: 20303878
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Aug 1;33(22):2457-63
pubmed: 26124480
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2016 Jan 12;17(1):21-5
pubmed: 27026775
Cell Physiol Biochem. 2018;46(1):178-186
pubmed: 29587273
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2017;38(2):209-213
pubmed: 29953782
Cancer Sci. 2019 Oct;110(10):3068-3078
pubmed: 31432577