4.8 Article

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio reflects hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation via inflammatory microenvironment

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 58-64

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.08.017

关键词

NLR; Liver transplantation; HCC; IL 17; TAM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Although the Milan criteria (MC) have been used to select liver transplantation candidates among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), many patients exceeding the MC have shown good prognosis. Preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a predictor of patient prognosis, but its mechanism has never been clarified. Methods: We assessed outcomes in 158 patients who had undergone living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for HCC. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was determined in patients with high (>= 4) and low (<4) NLR. Levels of expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin (IL)-8, IL-17, CD68, and CD163 were measured. Results: The 5-year RFS rate was significantly lower in patients with high (n = 26) than with low (n = 132) NLR (30.3% vs. 89.0%, p<0.0001), in patients with high (n = 15) than with low (n = 79) NLR who met the MC (73.6% vs. 100%, p = 0.0008) and in patients with high (n = 11) than with low (n = 53) NLR who exceeded the MC (0% vs. 76.1%, p = 0.0002). Tumor expression of VEGF, IL8, IL-17, CD68, and CD163 was similar in the high and low NLR groups, but serum and peritumoral IL-17 levels were significantly higher in the high-NLR group (p = 0.01 each). The density of peritumoral CD163 correlated with the density of peritumoral IL-17-producing cells (p = 0.04) and was significantly higher in the high-NLR group (p = 0.005). Conclusions: NLR predicts outcomes after LDLT for HCC via the inflammatory tumor microenvironment. Combined with the MC, NLR may be a new criterion for LDLT candidates with HCC. (C) 2012 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据