4.7 Article

Inflammatory Markers are Associated with Outcome in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Transarterial Chemoembolization

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 923-928

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2639-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The serum neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is associated with outcomes in several solid organ cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We reviewed our experience in patients with HCC who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as the initial treatment. Serum complete blood counts were used to calculate the NLR before and after TACE. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine survival and significant differences between groups by the log-rank test. There were 103 patients identified who underwent TACE for HCC. The median age was 60.5 years. Median overall survival was 12.6 (95 % confidence interval 8.3-17) months. Median survival in patients with a high preprocedural NLR was 4.2 months compared to 15 months in those with a normal NLR (p = 0.021). In those whose NLR either rose 1 month after treatment or remained elevated, survival was worse compared to those who normalized or remained normal (18.6 vs. 10.6 months, p = 0.026). The same was true at 6 months (21.3 vs. 9.5 months, p = 0.002). An unresponsive NLR was associated with very poor outcome (median survival 3.7 months). Multivariate analysis of clinicopathologic factors showed that presence of extrahepatic disease and high NLR were independent factors associated with worse survival. Our study demonstrates that periprocedural trends of serum NLR are associated with outcome in unresectable HCC undergoing TACE. Serum NLR is easy to calculate from a routine complete blood count with differential. Along with liver function, serum NLR may be helpful to clinicians in providing prognostic information and monitoring response to therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available