4.6 Article

An Inflammation Based Score Can Optimize the Selection of Patients with Advanced Cancer Considered for Early Phase Clinical Trials

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083279

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Imperial Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC)
  3. Cancer Research UK (CRUK)
  4. Imperial National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)
  5. Ovarian Cancer Action [OCA10] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Adequate organ function and good performance status (PS) are common eligibility criteria for phase I trials. As inflammation is pathogenic and prognostic in cancer we investigated the prognostic performance of inflammation-based indices including the neutrophil (NLR) and platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR). Methods: We studied inflammatory scores in 118 unselected referrals. NLR normalization was recalculated at disease reassessment. Each variable was assessed for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on uni- and multivariate analyses and tested for 90 days survival (90DS) prediction using receiving operator curves (ROC). Results: We included 118 patients with median OS 4.4 months, 23% PS>1. LDH >= 450 and NLR >= 5 were multivariate predictors of OS (p<0.001). NLR normalization predicted for longer OS (p<0.001) and PFS (p<0.05). PS and NLR ranked as most accurate predictors of both 90DS with area under ROC values of 0.66 and 0.64, and OS with c-score of 0.69 and 0.60. The combination of NLR+PS increased prognostic accuracy to 0.72. The NLR was externally validated in a cohort of 126 subjects. Conclusions: We identified the NLR as a validated and objective index to improve patient selection for experimental therapies, with its normalization following treatment predicting for a survival benefit of 7 months. Prospective validation of the NLR is warranted.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available