4.0 Article

Peripheral Inflammation Markers of Chemosensitivity to Induction Chemotherapy in Hypopharyngeal Cancer Patients

Journal

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000499474

Keywords

Hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma; Pretreatment lymphocyte count; Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; Chemosensitivity

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81602365, 81670902, 81470674]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2016A030310153, 2014A030313031, 2016A030313257]
  3. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province [2014A020212141]
  4. Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province [A2017216]
  5. Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery [201605030003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Induction chemotherapy (ICT) has become an initial treatment for late-stage hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); however, there are no data regarding ICT sensitivity for this population. Objective: This study investigated the predictive value of various inflammation markers for ICT responses in hypopharyngeal SCC. Methods: The data from 72 patients who received initial ICT treatment were obtained and associations between pretreatment inflammation markers and overall responses to ICT were calculated. Results: According to receiver operating characteristic curves, pretreatment lymphocyte count (PLC), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) achieved diagnostic accuracy for overall responses to ICT. These indicators were classified into two groups according to their cut-off values. Overall response rates were significantly higher in the low PLC (p < 0.01), high NLR (p = 0.035), and high PLR (p = 0.012) groups. Conclusion: Our results showed that low PLC, high NLR, and high PLR are predictors of positive responses to ICT in hypopharyngeal SCC 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

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available