4.6 Article

Association of Pre- and Posttreatment Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio With Recurrence and Mortality in Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.598873

关键词

neutrophil– lymphocyte ratio; chemoradiation; locally advanced; non-small cell lung cancer; vertebral body

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been associated with mortality in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its association with recurrence in locally advanced NSCLC (LA-NSCLC), specifically, is less established. We hypothesized pre- and posttreatment NLR would be associated with recurrence and mortality. Methods We studied the association of pretreatment NLR (pre-NLR) and posttreatment NLR at 1 (post-NLR1) and 3 months (post-NLR3) with outcomes in patients with LA-NSCLC treated with chemoradiation. Pre-NLR was dichotomized by 5, an a priori cutoff previously shown to be prognostic in LA-NSCLC. Post-NLR1 and post-NLR3 were dichotomized by their medians. Results We identified 135 patients treated with chemoradiation for LA-NSCLC between 2007 and 2016. Median follow-up for living patients was 61.1 months. On multivariable analysis, pre-NLR >= 5 was associated with worse overall survival (HR = 1.82; 95% CI 1.15 - 2.88; p = 0.011), but not with any recurrence, locoregional recurrence, or distant recurrence. Post-NLR1 >= 6.3 was not associated with recurrence or survival. Post-NLR3 >= 6.6 was associated with worse overall survival (HR = 3.27; 95% CI 2.01- 5.31; p < 0.001), any recurrence (HR = 2.50; 95% CI 1.53 - 4.08; p < 0.001), locoregional recurrence (HR = 2.50; 95% CI 1.40 - 4.46; p = 0.002), and distant recurrence (HR = 2.53; 95% CI 1.49 - 4.30; p < 0.001). Conclusion Pretreatment NLR is associated with worse overall survival and posttreatment NLR is associated with worse survival and recurrence. These findings should be validated independently and prospectively studied.

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

4.6
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