4.3 Article

Prognostic importance of baseline neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in patients with advanced papillary thyroid carcinomas

期刊

ENDOCRINE
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 526-531

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-013-0089-6

关键词

Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; Thyroid; Cancer; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammation is associated with several tumor development and progression. However, these associations are not clear in well-differentiated thyroid carcinomas. We assessed whether NLR is a useful prognostic marker in patients with papillary thyroid carcinomas (PTC). The medical records of all patients who underwent thyroid surgery at a single institution between March 2005 and September 2012 were retrospectively evaluated; as a control group, patients who underwent routine health examinations in 2012 were also evaluated. Differences in mean NLR among patient groups were assessed, and clinical characteristics according to NLR quartile were evaluated in patients with PTC. The association between NLR and disease-free survival (DFS) in PTC patients was determined. NLR was significantly higher in the groups with than without thyroid nodules, but did not differ significantly in patients with benign and malignant thyroid nodules. Mean NLR was significantly higher in patients with solid or mixed thyroid than in patients with cystic nodules (1.75 +/- A 0.92 vs. 1.65 +/- A 0.74, p = 0.004). Patient follow-up ranged from 6 to 99 months. At 5-year follow-up, 11 patients had disease-specific events. We found that 5-year DFS rate was significantly worse in stages III and IV patients with NLR a parts per thousand yen1.5 than NLR < 1.5 (94.1 vs. 99.3 %, p = 0.013). The univariate Cox hazard proportional hazard model for DFS revealed that higher NLR was independently correlated with poorer prognosis (hazard ratio 8.76; 95 % confidence interval 1.09-70.27, p = 0.041). Higher NLR may be a negative prognostic marker for DFS in patients with PTC, especially those with stages III and IV.

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