Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Prognostic value of preoperative inflammatory response biomarkers in patients with esophageal cancer who undergo a curative thoracoscopic esophagectomy

  • Noriyuki Hirahara1Email author,
  • Takeshi Matsubara1,
  • Yoko Mizota1,
  • Shuichi Ishibashi1 and
  • Yoshitsugu Tajima1
BMC SurgeryBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:66

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-016-0179-5

Received: 7 March 2016

Accepted: 7 September 2016

Published: 20 September 2016

Abstract

Background

Several inflammatory response biomarkers, including lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) have been reported to predict survival in various cancers. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical value of these biomarkers in patients undergoing curative resection for esophageal cancer.

Methods

The LMR, NLR and PLR were calculated in 147 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy between January 2006 and February 2015. We examined the prognostic significance of the LMR, NLR, and PLR in both elderly and non-elderly patients. We evaluated the cancer-specific survival (CSS), with the cause of death determined from the case notes or computerized records.

Results

Univariate analyses demonstrated that TNM pStage (p < 0.0001), tumor size (p = 0.0014), operation time (p = 0.0209), low LMR (p = 0.0008), and high PLR (p = 0.0232) were significant risk factors for poor prognosis. Meanwhile, TNM pStage (p < 0.0001) and low LMR (p = 0.0129) were found to be independently associated with poor prognosis via multivariate analysis.

In non-elderly patients, univariate analyses demonstrated that TNM pStage (p < 0.0001), tumor size (p = 0.0001), operation time (p = 0.0374), LMR (p < 0.0001), and PLR (p = 0.0189) were significantly associated with a poorer prognosis. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that TNM pStage (p = 0.001) and LMR (p = 0.0007) were independent risk factors for a poorer prognosis.

In elderly patients, univariate analysis demonstrated that that TNM pStage (p = 0.0023) was the only significant risk factor for a poor prognosis.

Conclusions

LMR was associated with cancer-specific survival (CSS) of esophageal cancer patients after curative esophagectomy. In particular, a low LMR was a significant and independent predictor of poor survival in non-elderly patients. The LMR was convenient, cost effective, and readily available, and could thus act as markers of survival in esophageal cancer.

Keywords

Esophageal cancer Lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) Platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR) Prognostic predictor

Background

It is now widely recognized that host-related factors, such as performance status, weight loss, smoking, and comorbidity, as well as the biological properties of individual tumors, play an important role in cancer outcomes [1]. Recent studies have shown that preoperative inflammation-based prognostic scores have a significant predictive and prognostic value in various types of cancers [24]. A systemic inflammatory response has been reported to be associated with tumor development, apoptosis inhibition, and angiogenesis promotion, thus resulting in tumor progression and metastasis [5, 6]. Furthermore, significant relationships between patient survival and the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) have been documented in various cancers [79]. However, only a few studies have evaluated the utility of inflammation-based scores for assessing the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the LMR, NLR, and PLR have prognostic values independent of conventional clinicopathological features in patients undergoing a potentially curative resection for esophageal cancer. Additionally, this study stratified patients into two age groups, elderly patients aged 70 years or older and patients aged under 70 years, because esophageal cancer occurs predominantly in elderly people and age-specific prognostic factors in patients with esophageal cancer have not yet been identified.

Methods

Patients

We retrospectively reviewed a database of medical records from 147 consecutive patients who underwent curative esophagectomy with R0 resection for histologically verified esophageal squamous cell carcinoma between January 2006 and February 2015 at Shimane University Faculty of Medicine. R0 resection was defined as a complete resection without any microscopic resection margin involvement. Video-assisted or thoracoscopic subtotal esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection was performed in all patients, followed by laparoscopic gastric surgery with an elevation of the gastric conduit to the neck via the posterior mediastinal or a retrosternal approach with an end-to-end anastomosis of the remnant cervical esophagus and fundus of the gastric conduit. The patients’ clinical characteristics, laboratory data, treatment, and pathological data were obtained from medical records. Preoperatively, no patients had clinical signs of infection or other systemic inflammatory conditions. Based on the age distribution of the patients, they were subdivided into two groups in this study: patients <70 years (non-elderly group) and patients ≥70 years (elderly group). We evaluated cancer-specific survival (CSS), with the cause of death determined from case notes or computerized records.

This retrospective study was approved with the ethical board of Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Blood sample analysis

Data on preoperative complete blood cell (CBC) counts were retrospectively extracted from patient medical records. Only patients with available preoperative CBC count and blood differential data were included in the study. All white blood cell and differential counts were obtained within 1 week prior to surgery. CBC was measured using ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-treated blood, and analyzed using an automated hematology analyzer XE-5000 (SYSMEX K1000 hematology analyzer; Medical Electronics, Kobe, Japan). Absolute counts of lymphocytes, monocytes, and platelets were obtained from CBC tests.

LMR, NLR, and PLR evaluations

The LMR was calculated from a routinely performed preoperative blood cell count as the absolute lymphocyte count divided by the absolute monocyte count. White blood cell count data were analyzed in the general routine laboratory of our hospital. The NLR was calculated as a simple ratio between the absolute neutrophil and absolute lymphocyte counts, as provided by the differential white blood cell count. The PLR was calculated from the differential count by dividing the absolute platelet count by the absolute lymphocyte count.

TNM stage

The pathological classification of the primary tumor, degree of lymph node involvement, and presence of organ metastasis were determined according to the TNM classification system [10].

Statistical analysis

Means and standard deviations were calculated, and differences between groups were evaluated using a Student’s t-test. Differences between categories of each clinicopathological feature were analyzed using a Chi-square (χ2) test.

We determined the optimal cut-off levels of the LMR, NLR, and PLR by applying receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis. Regarding LMR, the area under curve (AUC) was 0.69 for CSS. A value of 4.0 was chosen as the cut-off level for LMR for CSS as associated with a high sensitivity and specificity for CSS (62.5 and 71.3 %, respectively). Regarding NLR, the AUC was 0.58 for CSS. A value of 1.6 was chosen as the cut-off level for NLR for CSS as associated with a sensitivity and specificity for CSS (57.5 and 66.3 %, respectively). Regarding PLR, the AUC was 0.65 for CSS. A value of 147 was chosen as the cut-off level for PLR for CSS as associated with a high sensitivity and specificity for CSS (59.6 and 68.4 %, respectively). The patients with LMR, NLR, and PLR greater than these cutoff values were considered to have high LMR, NLR, and PLR, respectively; the remaining patients were considered to have low LMR, low NLR, and low PLR. CSS was calculated using Kaplan–Meier analysis, and differences between the groups were assessed by a log-rank test. Additionally, prognostic factors associated with decreased survival rates were determined using Cox regression analysis.

Univariate analyses were performed to determine which variables were associated with CSS. Variables with a p-value <0.05 in univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate logistic regression analysis. The potential prognostic factors for esophageal cancer were as follows: age (<70 vs. ≥70 years); sex (female vs. male); pStage (I, II vs. III); tumor size (<3 cm vs. ≥3 cm); operation time (<600 vs. ≥600 min); intraoperative blood loss (<5 00 mL vs. ≥500 mL); LMR (≥4 vs. <4); NLR (≥1.6 vs. <1.6); PLR (<147 vs. ≥147); weight loss (No vs. Yes: Weight loss was defined as more than 5 % decreasing in the body weight in the last 3 months preceding operation); and serum squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) antigen value (<1.5 vs. ≥1.5). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed to examine these factors.

All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical software JMP (version 11 for Windows; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA), and p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Relationships between LMR, NLR, PLR, and clinicopathological features in patients with esophageal cancer

The relationships between LMR, NLR, PLR, and clinicopathological features in 147 patients with esophageal cancer are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Relationships between LMR, NLR, PLR and clinicopathologic features of 147 all patients

Characteristics

Total patients

LMR

NLR

PLR

<4

(n = 64)

≥4

(n = 83)

p value

1.6<

(n = 37)

≥1.6

(n = 110)

p value

147<

(n = 79)

≥147

(n = 68)

p value

Age (years)

 

65.8 ± 7.4

65.7 ± 8.2

0.934

65.4 ± 8.0

65.9 ± 7.9

0.72

66.8 ± 8.1

64.6 ± 7.6

0.097

Gender

   

0.052

  

0.163

  

0.562

 Male

132

61

71

 

31

101

 

72

60

 

 Female

15

3

12

 

6

9

 

7

8

 

WBC

 

6082.2 ± 2153.2

5844.3 ± 1788.2

0.466

5284.1 ± 1667.3

6171.2 ± 1996.5

0.016

6190.9 ± 1723.0

5665.6 ± 2167.2

0.104

 Neutrophil

 

3944.7 ± 1804.6

3412.8 ± 1470.4

0.051

2491.0 ± 948.3

4032.3 ± 1643.7

<0.0001

3509.3 ± 1300.5

3801.3 ± 1960.9

0.283

 Lymphocyte

 

1322.0 ± 546.4

1942.5 ± 584.5

<0.0001

2187.6 ± 658.6

1499.0 ± 541.8

<0.0001

2029.2 ± 586.3

1257.7 ± 426.2

<0.0001

 Monocyte

 

546.8 ± 211.3

328.7 ± 111.1

<0.0001

379.0 ± 161.3

438.7 ± 203.3

0.1074

418.2 ± 171.3

430.0 ± 220.2

0.714

Platelet

 

236.6 ± 79.2

226.9 ± 66.2

0.42

231.0 ± 76.9

231.2 ± 70.7

0.987

203.5 ± 49.2

263.2 ± 80.9

<0.0001

Location of tumor

   

0.09

  

0.313

  

0.042

 Ce

6

5

1

 

1

5

 

0

6

 

 Ut

8

4

4

 

0

8

 

5

3

 

 Mt

65

29

36

 

20

45

 

32

33

 

 Lt

52

23

29

 

11

41

 

31

21

 

 Ae

16

3

13

 

5

11

 

11

5

 

Tumor size (mm)

 

4.9 ± 1.9

3.9 ± 2.7

0.014

3.8 ± 2.8

4.5 ± 2.3

0.134

4.0 ± 2.5

4.8 ± 2.3

0.056

Depth of tumor

   

0.0007

  

0.002

  

0.06

 T1a-1b

66

20

46

 

18

48

 

40

26

 

 2

12

2

10

 

8

4

 

9

3

 

 3

56

33

23

 

8

48

 

26

30

 

 4a-4b

13

9

4

 

3

10

 

4

9

 

Lymph node metastasis

   

0.2732

  

0.1532

  

0.0639

 N0

79

30

49

 

22

57

 

43

36

 

 N1

42

19

23

 

12

30

 

25

17

 

 N2

12

8

4

 

3

9

 

8

4

 

 N3

14

7

7

 

0

14

 

3

11

 

Pathological stage

   

0.0002

  

0.1338

  

0.3497

 1a-1b

59

14

45

 

20

39

 

36

23

 

 2a-2b

33

21

12

 

6

27

 

16

17

 

 3a-3c

55

29

26

 

11

44

 

27

28

 

Operation time (min)

 

644.8 ± 162.2

663.5 ± 159.2

0.4843

655.9 ± 177.2

655.2 ± 155.0

0.9798

676.5 ± 149.0

630.8 ± 170.2

0.0845

Intraoperative blood loss (ml)

 

751.8 ± 622.8

581.6 ± 633.4

0.1059

568.8 ± 511.1

684.9 ± 667.8

0.3359

598.5 ± 633.1

722.2 ± 629.7

0.2384

SCC antigen

 

1.19 ± 1.06

1.12 ± 1.12

0.7208

1.04 ± 1.12

1.19 ± 1.08

0.7643

1.05 ± 0.91

1.27 ± 1.26

0.8858

LMR lymphocyte to monocyte ratio, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet lymphocyte ratio

Significant correlations were observed between the LMR and factors such as lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001), monocyte count (p < 0.0001), tumor size (p = 0.014), tumor depth (p = 0.0007), and TNM pStage (p = 0.0002). The NLR was significantly correlated with neutrophil count (p < 0.0001), lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001), and tumor depth (p = 0.002). Furthermore, significant correlations were observed between the PLR and lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001), platelet count (p < 0.0001), and tumor location (p = 0.042). It is notable that a low LMR was significantly correlated with more advanced TNM pStage, while the NLR and PLR showed no significant associations with TNM pStage.

Prognostic factors for CSS in overall patients with esophageal cancer

Univariate analyses demonstrated that TNM pStage (p < 0.0001), tumor size (p = 0.0014), operation time (p = 0.0209), low LMR (p = 0.0008), and high PLR (p = 0.0232) were significant risk factors for poor prognosis (Table 2).
Table 2

Prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival in 147 patients with esophageal cancer

Variables

Patients (n = 147)

Category or characteristics

Univariate

Multivariate

HR

95 % CI

p value

HR

95 % CI

p value

Gender

15/132

(female/male)

0.942

0.406–2.740

0.9007

   

Age

46/101

(70</≥70)

1.427

0.742–2.639

0.2771

   

pStage

92/55

(1,2/3)

4.876

2.625–9.420

<0.0001

4.19

2.146–8.562

<0.0001

Tumor size

45/102

(3</≥3)

3.405

1.548–8.981

0.0014

1.433

0.580–4.056

0.4493

Operation time

99/48

(600</≥600)

2.041

1.116–3.741

0.0209

1.425

0.757–2.681

0.2699

Intraoperative blood loss

72/75

(500</≥500)

1.321

0.723–2.463

0.3663

   

LMR

83/64

(≥4.0/4.0<)

2.829

1.537–5.378

0.0008

2.372

1.198–4.840

0.0129

NLR

37/110

(≥1.6/1.6<)

1.469

0.753–2.734

0.2494

   

PLR

79/68

(147</≥147)

2.013

1.100–3.783

0.0232

1.12

0.611–2.404

0.5999

SCC antigen

109/38

(1.5</≥1.5)

1.3

0.603–2.564

0.4842

   

LMR lymphocyte to monocyte ratio, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet lymphocyte ratio, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

TNM pStage (HR, 4.190; 95 % CI, 2.146–8.562; p < 0.0001) and low LMR (HR, 2.372; 95 % CI, 1.198–4.840; p = 0.0129) were found to be independently associated with poor prognosis via multivariate analysis (Table 2).

Relationships between LMR, NLR, PLR, and clinicopathological features in non-elderly patients with esophageal cancer

The relationships between LMR, NLR, PLR, and clinicopathological features in non-elderly patients (younger than 70 years) are shown in Table 3. Significant correlations were observed between the LMR and such factors as lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001), monocyte count (p < 0.0001), tumor location (p = 0.0169), tumor size (p = 0.0309), tumor depth (p = 0.0093), and TNM pStage (p = 0.0003). The NLR was significantly correlated with neutrophil count (p < 0.0001), lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001), tumor size (p = 0.0452), tumor depth (p = 0.0018), and TNM pStage (p = 0.0032). Furthermore, significant correlations were observed between the PLR and lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001) as well as platelet count (p < 0.0001).
Table 3

Relationships between LMR, NLR, PLR and clinicopathologic features of 101 nonelderly patients

Characteristics

Total patients

LMR

NLR

PLR

<4

(n = 43)

≥4

(n = 58)

p value

1.6<

(n = 25)

≥1.6

(n = 76)

p value

147<

(n = 54)

≥147

(n = 47)

p value

Age (years)

 

61.9 ± 5.2

61.6 ± 5.6

0.7778

61.1 ± 5.8

61.9 ± 5.3

0.7249

62.4 ± 5.2

60.8 ± 5.5

0.1294

Gender

   

0.1283

  

0.2392

  

0.1171

 Male

91

41

50

 

21

70

 

51

40

 

 Female

10

2

8

 

4

6

 

3

7

 

WBC

 

6261.2 ± 2234.8

5951.4 ± 1747.8

0.7819

5654.4 ± 1725.4

6224.3 ± 2028.8

0.2101

6242.2 ± 1660.6

5900.6 ± 287.0

0.3863

 Neutrophil

 

4020.2 ± 1757.4

3506.3 ± 1522.4

0.9402

2645.3 ± 978.7

4080.3 ± 1659.8

<0.0001

3481.2 ± 1252.0

4005.4 ± 1969.1

0.109

 Lymphocyte

 

1352.8 ± 621.1

1964.2 ± 584.6

<0.0001

2362.7 ± 651.4

1487.2 ± 520.4

<0.0001

2068.7 ± 601.1

1284.7 ± 473.7

<0.0001

 Monocyte

 

574.3 ± 223.8

336.1 ± 109.6

<0.0001

395.8 ± 163.2

451.3 ± 215.8

0.2417

438.1 ± 172.2

436.9 ± 238.6

0.9756

Platelet

 

230.1 ± 76.1

233.0 ± 70.2

0.8422

215.2 ± 64.4

237.2 ± 74.5

0.9051

205.7 ± 47.3

261.7 ± 84.3

<0.0001

Location of tumor

   

0.0169

  

0.5489

  

0.1445

 Ce

4

4

0

 

0

4

 

0

4

 

 Ut

4

3

1

 

0

4

 

3

1

 

 Mt

49

23

26

 

14

35

 

24

25

 

 Lt

31

11

20

 

8

23

 

19

12

 

 Ae

13

2

11

 

3

10

 

8

5

 

Tumor size (mm)

 

4.9 ± 2.1

3.9 ± 2.8

0.0309

3.4 ± 2.7

4.6 ± 2.5

0.0452

4.0 ± 2.8

4.7 ± 2.2

0.2116

Depth of tumor

   

0.0093

  

0.0018

  

0.0943

 T1a-1b

44

12

32

 

13

31

 

29

15

 

 2

6

1

5

 

5

1

 

4

2

 

 3

40

23

17

 

5

35

 

17

23

 

 4a-4b

11

7

4

 

2

9

 

4

7

 

Lymph node metastasis

   

0.5691

  

0.1307

  

0.3183

 N0

56

22

34

 

18

38

 

32

24

 

 N1

28

13

15

 

6

22

 

16

12

 

 N2

6

4

2

 

1

5

 

3

3

 

 N3

11

4

7

 

0

11

 

3

8

 

Pathological stage

   

0.0003

  

0.0032

  

0.1024

 1a-1b

41

9

32

 

17

24

 

27

14

 

 2a-2b

20

15

5

 

1

19

 

8

12

 

 3a-3c

40

19

21

 

7

33

 

19

21

 

Operation time (min)

 

617.8 ± 142.7

666.4 ± 148.0

0.101

643.33 ± 151.1

646.5 ± 146.8

0.9246

680.2 ± 147.9

606.0 ± 137.2

0.107

Intraoperative blood loss (ml)

 

727.9 ± 578.1

538.5 ± 523.1

0.0543

616.4 ± 567.6

620.1 ± 551.2

0.9772

563.0 ± 531.4

683.7 ± 574.5

0.2753

SCC antigen

 

1.01 ± 0.76

1.20 ± 1.26

0.3828

1.11 ± 1.26

1.11 ± 1.02

0.9667

1.04 ± 0.97

1.20 ± 1.19

0.465

LMR lymphocyte to monocyte ratio, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet lymphocyte ratio

Prognostic factors for CSS in non-elderly patients with esophageal cancer

In non-elderly patients, univariate analyses demonstrated that TNM pStage (p < 0.0001), tumor size (p = 0.0001), operation time (p = 0.0374), LMR (p < 0.0001), and PLR (p = 0.0189) were significantly associated with a poorer prognosis. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that TNM pStage (HR, 4.009; 95 % CI, 1.731–10.162; p = 0.001) and LMR (HR, 4.553; 95 % CI, 1.856–12.516; p = 0.0007) were independent risk factors for a poorer prognosis (Table 4).
Table 4

Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in 101 non-elderly patients with esophageal cancer

Variables

Patients (n = 101)

Category or characteristics

Univariate

Multivariate

HR

95 % CI

p value

HR

95 % CI

p value

Gender

10/91

(female/male)

0.608

0.233–20.78

0.388

   

pStage

61/40

(1,2/3)

5.022

2.321–11.715

<0.0001

4.009

1.731–10.162

0.001

Tumor size

34/67

(3</≥3)

8.34

2.491–51.782

0.0001

3.115

0.788–20.674

0.1114

Operation time

67/34

(600</≥600)

2.219

1.048–4.752

0.0374

1.109

0.490–2.540

0.803

Intraoperative blood loss

49/52

(500</≥500)

1.53

0.723–3.373

0.2679

   

LMR

58/43

(≥4/4<)

5.076

2.259–12.909

<0.0001

4.553

1.856–12.516

0.0007

NLR

25/76

(≥1.6/1.6<)

1.593

0.656–4.750

0.322

   

PLR

54/47

(147</≥147)

2.475

1.160–5.592

0.0189

1.163

0.499–2.845

0.5999

SCC antigen

76/25

(1.5</≥1.5)

0.915

0.305–2.244

0.857

   

LMR lymphocyte to monocyte ratio, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet lymphocyte ratio, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

Relationships between LMR, NLR, PLR, and clinicopathological features in elderly patients with esophageal cancer

The relationships between LMR, NLR, PLR, and clinicopathological features in elderly patients (70 years or older) are shown in Tables 5. Significant correlations were observed between the LMR and such factors as lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001), monocyte count (p = 0.0001), and serum SCC antigen (p = 0.0342). The NLR was significantly correlated with factors such as WBC (p = 0.0146), age (p = 0.012), lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001), and neutrophil count (p = 0.0009). Furthermore, significant correlations were observed between the PLR and lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001) as well as platelet count (p = 0.0009).
Table 5

Relationships between LMR, NLR, PLR and clinicopathologic features of 46 elderly patients

Characteristics

Total patients

LMR

NLR

PLR

<4

(n = 21)

≥4

(n = 25)

p value

1.6<

(n = 12)

≥1.6

(n = 34)

p value

147<

(n = 25)

≥147

(n = 21)

p value

Age (years)

 

74.0 ± 3.8

75.4 ± 4.4

0.8781

74.3 ± 3.0

75.0 ± 4.5

0.6094

76.2 ± 4.3

73.1 ± 3.3

0.012

Gender

   

0.2226

  

0.453

  

0.2226

 Male

41

20

21

 

10

31

 

21

20

 

 Female

5

1

4

 

2

3

 

4

1

 

WBC

 

5715.7 ± 1976.4

5596.0 ± 1891.6

0.835

4512.5 ± 1281.2

6052.4 ± 1946.8

0.0146

6080.0 ± 1881.6

5139.5 ± 1858.8

0.0966

 Neutrophil

 

3790.0 ± 1932.6

3195.8 ± 1346.0

0.2271

2169.4 ± 828.4

3925.1 ± 1626.7

0.0009

3570.0 ± 1424.7

3344.5 ± 1909.4

0.649

 Lymphocyte

 

1258.9 ± 352.0

1892.1 ± 593.0

<0.0001

1822.8 ± 528.1

1525.4 ± 594.0

0.1327

1943.9 ± 555.2

1197.2 ± 294.4

<0.0001

 Monocyte

 

490.2 ± 174.3

311.6 ± 115.0

0.0001

344.1 ± 158.3

410.5 ± 171.8

0.2469

375.1 ± 164.4

414.7 ± 176.4

0.4351

Platelet

 

250.0 ± 85.7

212.8 ± 54.3

0.0805

263.8 ± 92.6

217.8 ± 60.4

0.0563

198.8 ± 53.8

266.6 ± 74.7

0.0009

Location of tumor

   

0.6568

  

0.1274

  

0.2753

 Ce

2

1

1

 

1

1

 

0

2

 

 Ut

4

1

3

 

0

4

 

2

2

 

 Mt

16

6

10

 

6

10

 

8

8

 

 Lt

21

12

9

 

3

18

 

12

9

 

 Ae

3

1

2

 

2

1

 

3

0

 

Tumor size (mm)

 

4.9 ± 1.5

3.9 ± 2.5

0.0987

4.6 ± 3.2

4.3 ± 1.7

0.6459

3.9 ± 1.8

4.9 ± 2.4

0.0987

Depth of tumor

   

0.0716

  

0.3997

  

0.2032

 T1a-1b

22

8

14

 

5

17

 

11

11

 

 2

6

1

5

 

3

3

 

5

1

 

 3

16

10

6

 

3

13

 

9

7

 

 4a-4b

2

2

0

 

1

1

 

0

2

 

Lymph node metastasis

   

0.1229

  

0.2441

  

0.0875

 N0

23

8

15

 

4

19

 

11

12

 

 N1

14

6

8

 

6

8

 

9

5

 

 N2

6

4

2

 

2

4

 

5

1

 

 N3

3

3

0

 

0

3

 

0

3

 

Pathological stage

   

0.0825

  

0.3939

  

0.8129

 1a-1b

18

5

13

 

3

15

 

9

9

 

 2a-2b

13

6

7

 

5

8

 

8

5

 

 3a-3c

15

10

5

 

4

11

 

8

7

 

Operation time (min)

 

700.0 ± 187.8

656.8 ± 185.7

0.4385

682.3 ± 227.8

674.5 ± 172.6

0.9021

668.5 ± 154.0

686.2 ± 221.6

0.7515

Intraoperative blood loss (ml)

 

800.7 ± 718.7

681.5 ± 840.3

0.3057

469.8 ± 368.8

829.9 ± 866.8

0.1723

675.2 ± 818.5

808.2 ± 746.9

0.2854

SCC antigen

 

1.56 ± 1.44

0.96 ± 0.68

0.0342

0.90 ± 0.80

1.35 ± 1.21

0.2379

1.07 ± 0.78

1.42 ± 1.43

0.2961

LMR lymphocyte to monocyte ratio, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet lymphocyte ratio

Prognostic factors for CSS in elderly patients with esophageal cancer

In elderly patients, univariate analysis demonstrated that that TNM pStage (p = 0.0023) was the only significant risk factor for a poor prognosis (Table 6).
Table 6

Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in 46 elderly patients with esophageal cancer

Variables

Patients (n = 46)

Category or characteristics

Univariate

Multivariate

HR

95 % CI

p value

HR

95 % CI

p value

Gender

5/41

(female/male)

3.114

0.611–56.892

0.201

   

pStage

31/15

(1,2/3)

5.22

1.824–16.080

0.0023

5.22

1.824–16.080

0.0023

Tumor size

11/35

(3</≥3)

0.976

0.333–3.529

0.9666

   

Operation time

32/14

(600</≥600)

1.761

0.615–4.929

0.2822

   

Intraoperative blood loss

23/23

(500</≥500)

0.981

0.349–2.820

0.9707

   

LMR

25/21

(≥4/4<)

1.118

0.368–3.175

0.837

   

NLR

12/34

(≥1.6/1.6<)

0.853

0.464–1.535

0.718

   

PLR

25/21

(147</≥147)

1.3

0.464–3.712

0.616

   

SCC antigen

33/13

(1.5</≥1.5)

2.261

0.689–6.565

0.167

   

LMR lymphocyte to monocyte ratio, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet lymphocyte ratio, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, HR hazard ratio, CI, confidence interval

Postoperative CSS based on LMR, NLR, and PLR in all patients with esophageal cancer

Patients with a low LMR had a significantly poorer prognosis in terms of CSS than those with a high LMR (p = 0.0006). In contrast, patients with a high PLR had a significantly poorer prognosis than those with a low PLR (p = 0.0169), whereas no significant differences in CSS were observed between patients with a low or high NLR (p = 0.3214; Fig. 1a-c).
Fig. 1

Kaplan-Meier survival curves showing CSS after curative esophagectomy in overall patients with esophageal cancer. a LMR. b NLR. c PLR

Postoperative CSS based on LMR, NLR, and PLR in non-elderly patients with esophageal cancer

Patients with a low LMR had a significantly poorer prognosis in terms of CSS than those with a high LMR (p < 0.0001). In contrast, patients with a high PLR had a significantly poorer prognosis than those with a low PLR (p = 0.0172), whereas no significant differences in CSS were observed between patients with a low or high NLR (p = 0.3714; Fig. 2a-c).
Fig. 2

Kaplan-Meier survival curves showing CSS after curative esophagectomy in non-elderly patients with esophageal cancer. a LMR. b NLR. c PLR

Postoperative CSS based on LMR, NLR, and PLR in elderly patients with esophageal cancer

In the elderly group, no significant differences in CSS were observed between patients with either low or high LMR (p = 0.4700), NLR (p = 0.9698), or PLR (p = 0.5386; Fig. 3a-c).
Fig. 3

Kaplan-Meier survival curves showing CSS after curative esophagectomy in elderly patients with esophageal cancer. a LMR. b NLR. c PLR

Discussion

Pathological features, including tumor stage, nodal status, and resection margin, are considered important in determining cancer patient survival [11]. However, it is now clear that cancer survival is not solely determined by tumor pathology; indeed, recent studies have shown that preoperative inflammation-based prognostic scores can predict the overall survival of patients with various types of cancers [24]. In the present study, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients undergoing a potentially curative resection for esophageal cancer to determine whether the LMR, NLR, and PLR have prognostic values according to each TNM pStage. The results demonstrated that the LMR can be used as a novel predictor of postoperative CSS in patients with esophageal cancer after curative esophagectomy. Additionally, univariate analyses revealed that a low LMR was a significant risk factor for poor prognosis in stage III patients, whereas no prognostic factor was detected in patients with stage I or II cancer.

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a multifunctional inflammatory cytokine that triggers the proliferation and differentiation of a variety of cell types, including immune competent cells and hematopoietic cells. IL-6 induces not only neutrophil proliferation, but also the differentiation of megakaryocytes to platelets, and these events are similar to those underlying the systemic inflammatory response (SIR) [12, 13]. Theoretically, dynamic changes in the SIR resulting from tumor-host interactions are best estimated by directly measuring the serum IL-6 level. However, routine measurement of IL-6 in cancer patients in the clinical setting is expensive and inconvenient. On the other hand, the LMR, NLR, and PLR are based on blood cell components whose levels are regulated by cytokines, most notably, IL-6; these blood cell components proliferate and differentiate immediately after inflammatory cytokine release [14]. Moreover, measurement of the LMR, NLR, and PLR is easy, convenient, and cost-effective and therefore can be performed routinely.

In this study, we examined the prognostic significance of the LMR, NLR, and PLR in both elderly and non-elderly patients undergoing thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the sixth most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide [15]. It occurs predominantly in elderly people, and the average age at the time of diagnosis continues to rise, with a peak incidence between 70 and 75 years of age [16]. Because age-specific prognostic factors in patients with esophageal cancer have not yet been described, we divided patients into two age groups in order to determine the age-specific prognostic values of the LMR, NLR, and PLR. The reason we chose a cut-off value of 70 years is because “elderly” is typically defined as a patient aged over 70 years in a plurality of studies on elderly patients with esophageal cancer [1719].

Platelets are a key element linking the processes of hemostasis, inflammation, and tissue repair. Previous studies have shown that proinflammatory mediators stimulate megakaryocyte proliferation and are responsible for platelet production [20, 21]. Consequently, platelet activation causes angiogenic growth factor release as well as platelet adherence to tumor microvessels and extravasation via increased vascular permeability; this process leads to platelet activation [22, 23]. Lymphocytes can cause systemic inflammation by releasing numerous inhibitory immunologic mediators, particularly interleukin-10 and transforming growth factor-ß, which may consequently cause suppression of antitumor immunity via decreased regulatory T cell levels [6]. Accordingly, there is increasing evidence that lymphocytes are essential for antitumor immune reactions owing to several mechanisms, including the ability to enhance tumor cell apoptosis, inhibition of tumor cell proliferation, and promotion of metastasis [24]. Neutrophils are known to not only produce angiogenic cytokines, but have also been shown to generate matrix metalloproteinase-9, which induces an angiogenic state in cancer cells [25].

Based on such inflammatory responses, systemic inflammatory markers such as the LMR, NLR, and PLR have been shown to predict mortality and recurrence in a variety of cancers, but their role in esophageal cancer remains controversial [7, 20, 26].

We revealed that a low LMR in patients with esophageal cancer was significantly correlated with more advanced TNM pStage (p = 0.0002), but a low LMR was found to be independently associated with poor prognosis via multivariate analysis (HR, 2.372; p = 0.0129), as determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis and a log-rank test (p = 0.0006). A definitive explanation for our findings remains speculative. Monocytes are known to promote tumorigenesis and angiogenesis through local immune suppression and stimulation of tumor neovasculogenesis [25]. Moreover, tumor-associated macrophages developing from mononuclear cell lineages have been demonstrated to be able to inhibit cancer progression and spread of metastatic tumors [27, 28]. This could explain why an elevated monocyte count confers poor clinical outcomes in various types of cancers [29]. A poor prognosis was observed in patients with a low LMR in this study, which is reasonable because both lymphopenia and monocytosis induce immune suppression, as mentioned above. Moreover, the results of subgroup analysis revealed that the preoperative LMR was the most significant prognostic factor in non-elderly patients (HR, 4.553; p = 0.0007), as determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis and a log-rank test (p < 0.0001), but not in elderly patients. The present study may have failed to demonstrate a prognostic significance of the LMR in elderly patients because these patients were more likely to have advanced age-related conditions that cause immune suppression. Further investigations are required to elucidate the precise mechanisms that affect the prognosis of esophageal cancer patients.

Changes in platelet count and platelet function have been identified as part of a paraneoplastic syndrome in many cancers [30], and a high platelet count was found to be closely associated with TNM pStage, metastasis, as well as a high risk of recurrence in many types of cancer [31, 32]. Consequently, the PLR may act as a marker of the balance between host inflammatory and immune responses. However, to the best of our knowledge, the relationship between the PLR and esophageal cancer has not yet been described. We therefore focused on the PLR and CSS in esophageal cancer patients. Although univariate analysis demonstrated that the PLR was a significant risk factor for poorer CSS, as determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis and a log-rank test (p = 0.0169), multivariate analysis failed to confirm that the PLR was a significant predictor of CSS. Similarly, in non-elderly patients, univariate analysis demonstrated that the PLR was a significant risk factor for poorer CSS (p = 0.0172), but this significance was lost when analysis was confined to elderly patients. Recent studies have demonstrated that termed combination of platelet count and mean platelet volume is a predictor for postoperative survival in esophageal cancer patients [33]. Further studies are necessary to examine the role of these inflammatory biomarkers in various types of cancers.

The NLR has been reported to be highly promising in stratifying the outcome in large cohorts of patients with cancer [34, 35]. The relationship between the NLR and prognosis is probably complex and remains unclear. Recently, many studies have shown that a high NLR may indicate an impaired host immune response to the tumor [36]. In this study, the NLR did not affect the prognosis of esophageal cancer patients following curative resection, which may be due to the small retrospective sample size and short follow-up duration of the study. However, other components of the systemic inflammatory response, including cytokines and chemokines, have proven prognostically important in some studies [37].

There were several potential limitations that warrant consideration in our study, which include single-institution retrospective analysis, short follow-up periods, and a small sample size, especially elderly patients. Furthermore, we excluded patients who had received adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, which may have influenced our analysis. Thus, large, prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these preliminary results. In addition, the amount of weight loss are well-known prognostic factors for various types of cancers. Minimal weight loss and a good performance status are considered favorable prognostic factors. Needless to say significant weight loss may impact bone marrow function as well as the patient’s ability to mount a host-tumor response. But we could not reveal that weight loss were proven to be independent prognostic factors in esophageal cancer, because our study is retrospective analysis, and data about the weight loss are insufficient.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study demonstrated that the LMR and PLR were associated with CSS of esophageal cancer patients after curative esophagectomy. Moreover, the results of subgroup analysis revealed that the preoperative LMR and PLR were the most significant prognostic factors in non-elderly patients, as determined by Kaplan-Meier analyses and log-rank tests. In particular, a low LMR was a significant and independent predictor of poor survival. In non-elderly patients, a low LMR was also an independent risk factor for a poorer prognosis. The LMR and PLR are convenient, cost effective, and readily available as a part of routine complete blood counts, and could thus act as markers of survival in this malignancy.

Abbreviations

AUC: 

Area under curve

CBC: 

Complete blood cell

CSS: 

Cancer-specific survival

LMR: 

Lymphocyte to monocyte ratio

NLR: 

Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio

PLR: 

Platelet lymphocyte ratio

ROC: 

Receiver operating curve

SCC: 

Squamous cell carcinoma

Declarations

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article.

Authors’ contributions

NH was the lead author, and conceived this study. TM, DK, YM, and SI collected data, performed analysis, and drafted the manuscript. YT reviewed paper and technique of surgery. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This retrospective study was approved with the ethical board of Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Digestive and General Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine

References

  1. Roxburgh CS, McMillan DC. Role of systemic inflammatory response in predicting survival in patients with primary operable cancer. Future Oncol. 2010;6:149–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Porrata LF, Ristow K, Colgan JP, Habermann TM, Witzig TE, Inwards DJ, Ansell SM, Micallef IN, Johnston PB, Nowakowski GS, Thompson C, Markovic SN. Peripheral blood lymphocyte/monocyte ratio at diagnosis and survival in classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica. 2012;97:262–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2011.050138.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Szkandera J, Gerger A, Liegl-Atzwanger B, Absenger G, Stotz M, Friesenbichler J, Trajanoski S, Stojakovic T, Eberhard K, Leithner A, Pichler M. The lymphocyte/monocyte ratio predicts poor clinical outcome and improves the predictive accuracy in patients with soft tissue sarcomas. Int J Cancer. 2014;135:362–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28677.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hirahara N, Matsubara T, Hayashi H, Takai K, Fujii Y, Yajima Y. Impact of inflammation-based prognostic score on survival after curative thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Euro J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:1308–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2015.07.008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunn GP, Old LJ, Schreiber RD. The immunobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting. Immunity. 2004;21:137–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoffmann TK, Dworacki G, Tsukihiro T, Meidenbauer N, Gooding W, Johnson JT, Whiteside TL. Spontaneous apoptosis of circulating T lymphocytes in patients with head and neck cancer and its clinical importance. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:2553–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Deng Q, He B, Liu X, Yue J, Ying H, Pan Y, Sun H, Chen J, Wang F, Gao T, Zhang L, Wang S. Prognostic value of pre-operative inflammatory response biomarkers in gastric cancer patients and the construction of a predictive model. J Transl Med. 2015;13:66. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-015-0409-0.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Li ZM, Huang JJ, Xia Y, Sun J, Huang Y, Wang Y, Zhu YJ, Li YJ, Zhao W, Wei WX, Lin TY, Huang HQ, Jiang WQ. Blood lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio identifies high-risk patients in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. PLoS One. 2012;7:e41658. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041658.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Neofytou K, Smyth EC, Giakoustidis A, Khan AZ, Williams R, Cunningham D, Mudan S. The preoperative lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio is prognostic of clinical outcomes for patients with liver-only colorectal metastases in the neoadjuvant setting. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:4353–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4481-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumors. 7th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.Google Scholar
  11. Liu YP, Ma L, Wang SJ, Chen YN, Wu GX, Han M, Wang XL. Prognostic value of lymph node metastases and lymph node ratio in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:155–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Imai T, Koike K, Kubo T, Kikuchi T, Amano Y, Takagi M, Okumura N, Nakahata T. Interleukin-6 supports human megakaryocytic proliferation and differentiation in vitro. Blood. 1991;78:1969–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruscetti FW. Hematologic effects of interleukin-1 and interleukin-6. Curr Opin Hematol. 1994;1:210–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ohsugi Y. Recent advances in immunopathophysiology of interleukin-6: an innovative therapeutic drug, tocilizumab (recombinant humanized anti-human interleukin-6 receptor antibody), unveils the mysterious etiology of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Biol Pharm Bull. 2007;30:2001–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–108.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Yamamoto M, Weber JM, Karl RC, Meredith KL. Minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer: review of the literature and institutional experience. Cancer Control. 2013;20:130–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ma JY, Wu Z, Wang Y, Zhao YF, Liu LX, Kou YL, Zhou QH. Clinicopathologic characteristics of esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma in elderly patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:1296–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Poon RT, Law SY, Chu KM, Branicki FJ, Wong J. Esophagectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus in the elderly: results of current surgical management. Ann Surg. 1998;227:357–64.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Sabel MS, Smith JL, Nava HR, Mollen K, Douglass HO, Gibbs JF. Esophageal resection for carcinoma in patients older than 70 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:210–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Asher V, Lee J, Innamaa A, Bali A. Preoperative platelet lymphocyte ratio as an independent prognostic marker in ovarian cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2011;13:499–503. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-011-0687-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper ZA, Frederick DT, Juneja VR, Sullivan RJ, Lawrence DP, Piris A, Sharpe AH, Fisher DE, Flaherty KT, Wargo JA. BRAF inhibition is associated with increased clonality in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:e26615Google Scholar
  22. Bergers G, Brekken R, McMahon G, Vu TH, Itoh T, Tamaki K, Tanzawa K, Thorpe P, Itohara S, Werb Z, Hanahan D. Matrix metalloproteinase-9 triggers the angiogenic switch during carcinogenesis. Nat Cell Biol. 2000;2:737–44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Kono SA, Heasley LE, Doebele RC, Camidge DR. Adding to the mix: fibroblast growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor pathways as targets in non-small cell lung cancer. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2012;12:107–23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Fridman WH, Pagès F, Sautès-Fridman C, Galon J. The immune contexture in human tumours: impact on clinical outcome. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12:298–306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3245.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Koh YW, Kang HJ, Park C, Yoon DH, Kim S, Suh C, Go H, Kim JE, Kim CW, Huh J. The ratio of the absolute lymphocyte count to the absolute monocyte count is associated with prognosis in Hodgkin’s lymphoma: correlation with tumor-associated macrophages. Oncologist. 2012;17:871–80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0034.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Ying HQ, Deng QW, He BS, Pan YQ, Wang F, Sun HL, Chen J, Liu X, Wang SK. The prognostic value of preoperative NLR, d-NLR, PLR and LMR for predicting clinical outcome in surgical colorectal cancer patients. Med Oncol. 2014;31:305. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-014-0305-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Condeelis J, Pollard JW. Macrophages: obligate partners for tumor cell migration, invasion, and metastasis. Cell. 2006;124:263–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pollard JW. Tumour-educated macrophages promote tumour progression and metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:71–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Donskov F, von der Maase H. Impact of immune parameters on long-term survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1997–2005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Stone RL, Nick AM, McNeish IA, Balkwill F, Han HD, Bottsford-Miller J, Rupairmoole R, Armaiz-Pena GN, Pecot CV, Coward J, Deavers MT, Vasquez HG, Urbauer D, Landen CN, Hu W, Gershenson H, Matsuo K, Shahzad MM, King ER, Tekedereli I, Ozpolat B, Ahn EH, Bond VK, Wang R, Drew AF, Gushiken F, Lamkin D, Collins K, DeGeest K, Lutgendorf SK, Chiu W, Lopez-Berestein G, Afshar-Kharghan V, Sood AK. Paraneoplastic thrombocytosis in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:610–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1110352.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Li FX, Wei LJ, Zhang H, Li SX, Liu JT. Signifcance of thrombocytosis in clinicopathologic characteristics of prognosis of gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:6511–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Unal D, Eroglu C, Kurtul N, Oguz A, Tasdemir A. Are neutrophil/lymphocyte and platelrt/lymphocyte rates in patients with non-small cell lung cancer associated with treatment response and prognosis? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:5237–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Zang F, Chen C, Wang P, Hu X, Gao Y, He J. Combination of platelet count and mean platelet volume (COP-MPV) predicts postoperative prognosis in both resectable early and advanced stage esophageal squamous cell cancer patients. Tumor Biol. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-015-4774-3
  34. Proctor MJ, Morrison DS, Talwar D, Balmer SM, Fletcher CD, O’Reilly DS, Foulis AK, Horgan PG, McMillan DC. A comparison of inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with cancer. A Glasgow Inflammation Outcome Study. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:2633–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Proctor MJ, McMillan DC, Morrison DS, Fletcher CD, Horgan PG, Clarke SJ. A derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts survival in patients with cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:695–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Walsh SR, Cook EJ, Goulder F, Justin TA, Keeling NJ. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2005;91:181–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Proctor MJ, Horgan PG, Talwar D, Fletcher CD, Morrison DS, McMillan DC. Optimization of the systemic inflammation-based Glasgow prognostic score: a Glasgow Inflammation Outcome Study. Cancer. 2013;119:2325–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement