4.7 Article

Prognostic significance of pretreatment total lymphocyte count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 126, 期 3, 页码 499-505

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.12.030

关键词

Prognostic factors; Overall survival; Hematologic marker; Immune status; Inflammation

资金

  1. Cancer Center Support (Core) Grant from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [P30CA016672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We evaluated pretreatment total lymphocyte count (TLC, marker of immunosuppression), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR, marker of inflammation), and overall survival (OS) in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Methods: Pretreatment blood characteristics, age, sex, performance status, race, stage (M1a vs. M1b), number and location of metastases, weight loss, smoking status, chemotherapy cycles (<4 vs. >= 4), thoracic radiotherapy dose (<45 vs. >= 45 Gy), and receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) were evaluated in 252 patients with ES-SCLC treated in 1998-2015. Factors significant in univariate analysis were selected as covariates for a multivariate Cox model. Results: Pretreatment TLC was below normal (<1.0 x 10(3)/mu L) in 58 patients (23%). Median OS time was 11.0 months and was worse for those with TLC <= 1.5 x 10(3)/mu L (9.8 vs. 12.0 months) and pretreatment NLR > 4.0 (9.4 vs. 13.9 months). Multivariate analysis identified low TLC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.734, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.565-0.955, P = 0.021) and high NLR (HR 1.521, 95% CI 1.172-1.976, P = 0.002) as predicting inferior survival. Age (>63 y), sex (male), performance status (>= 2), chemotherapy cycles (<4), radiation dose (<45 Gy), and no PCI also predicted worse OS (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Pretreatment TLC and NLR may be useful for stratifying patients with ES-SCLC for treatment approaches. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 126 (2018) 499-505

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

4.7
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