4.3 Article

The prognostic value of preoperative neutrophils, platelets, lymphocytes, monocytes and calculated ratios in patients with laryngeal squamous cell cancer

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 8, 期 36, 页码 60514-60527

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16234

关键词

lymphocytes; neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio; laryngeal squamous carcinoma; prognosis

资金

  1. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality, China [12J1402100, 16411950101]
  2. Hospital Development Center [SHDC12015114]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was aimed to examine the prognostic value of preoperative neutrophils, platelets, lymphocytes, monocytes and calculated ratios in patients with laryngeal squamous cell cancer (LSCC). From January 2007 to December 2011, 979 patients with LSCC were enrolled in our study. Preoperative neutrophils, platelets, lymphocytes, monocytes, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) were analyzed. Besides well-established clinicopathological prognostic factors, we evaluated the independent prognostic relevance of these hematological parameters by Cox regression models in disease-free survival (DFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). We found patients in the highest tertile of NLR (> 2.40), PLR (> 111.00) were at significantly higher risk of DFS and CSS (P < 0.05) compared with those in the lowest tertile after multivariate analysis, whereas presenting significantly higher risk in the lowest tertile of lymphocytes (< 1.60x10(9)/L) and LMR (< 3.50). Additionally, the tertile category of NLR as well as PLR increased and lymphocytes as well as LMR decreased in shorter DFS and CSS by the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. In conclusion, this study indicated that preoperative lymphocytes, NLR, PLR and LMR were significantly associated with LSCC progression, DFS and CSS, and these hematological parameters could be considered independent prognostic values for patients with LSCC.

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

4.3
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