4.3 Article

Low lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio predicts unfavorable prognosis in non-germinal center type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Journal

LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 694-698

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2014.03.013

Keywords

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio; Cell-of-origin; Prognosis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81028013]
  2. Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province [2010B050700020]
  3. Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou City [12C22121553]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The peripheral blood lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) at diagnosis has been used to predict survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients, but its prognostic significance with respect to different cell-of-origin (COO) subtypes remains unknown. We retrospectively analyzed 168 de novo DLBCL patients in this study and found that a low LMR (<= 2.6) correlates with B symptoms, elevated LDH, advanced Ann Arbor stage and higher international prognostic index (IPI) score (p < 0.05). The low LMR is a negative prognostic parameter for overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) in non-germinal center (GC) type DLBCL patients, as compared with the high LMR, especially in those treated with R-CHOP. However, the LMR has less correlation with the OS and EFS in GC type DLBCL patients (p = 0.545 and 0.547, respectively). Multivariate analysis adjusting for IPI revealed that the low LMR indicates a shorter survival retain both OS and EFS in non-GC subtypes (p = 0.023 and 0.005, respectively). In the non-GC DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP a low LMR still showed a trend to predict poor EFS (p = 0.052). In conclusion, these data suggest that a low LMR at diagnosis may imply a poor prognosis in non-GC subtype DLBCL patients, especially in those treated with R-CHOP, but not in those GC subtype DLBCL patients. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available