4.2 Article

Preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio correlated with glioma grading and glioblastoma survival

Journal

NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 40, Issue 11, Pages 917-922

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01616412.2018.1497271

Keywords

Glioma; glioblastoma; grading; neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a simple, low-cost and easily measured inflammation marker, corresponding with pathological tumor grading and clinical prognosis in various cancers. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between preoperative NLR and glioma grading and also the correlation between NLR and glioblastoma survival. Methods: The preoperative NLR was analyzed retrospectively in 239 gliomas of different grades, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was adopted to investigate the prediction of glioma grading. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze the variables of overall survival (OS) of glioblastoma patients. Results: There were significant differences in the preoperative NLR values among the four glioma groups, with the highest values observed in the glioblastoma group (p < 0.05). ROC curve analysis showed the NLR value of 2.36 was a cutoff point for predicting glioblastoma. The OS of patients with high NLR (>= 4.0) was shorter compared with that with low NLR (< 4.0) (mean 11.23 vs. 18.56 months, p < 0.05). Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis indicated age >= 60, NLR >= 4.0, Karnofsky Performance Scores (KPS) <= 70, incomplete tumor resection, incomplete Stupp protocol accomplishment and the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) wild-type as independent prognostic indicators for poor outcome (each p < 0.05). Conclusion: The preoperative NLR was correlated with glioma grading, and the elevated NLR was an independent predictive factor for poor outcome of glioblastoma patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available