Preoperative Lymphocyte-to-monocyte Ratio is a Superior Systemic Inflammation Marker to Predict Relapses in Patients with Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms Following Curative Resections

Wentao Zhou,Xu Han,Ke Chen,Wenqi Chen,Suming Huang,Yuan Ji,Dansong Wang,Wenhui Lou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2019.10.1703
IF: 3.842
2019-01-01
HPB
Abstract:Introduction: Systemic inflammation markers have been demonstrated to be associated with prognosis in various solid tumors. In the present study, we aimed to assess the value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) and systemic immune-inflammation index in predicting prognosis among patients with resected pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs). Method: A total of 174 patients who met criteria were finally included into retrospective study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the predictive roles of inflammation markers for relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in pNEN patients who underwent curative resections. Result: The optimal cut-off values of NLR and LMR for the entire cohort were 1.9 and 5.0 determined by the X-tile software. RFS was found to be significantly longer in patients with NLR ≤ 1.9 (P = 0.041) and LMR > 5.0 (P < 0.001) in comparison to those with NLR > 1.9 and LMR ≤ 5.0, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that LMR (hazard ratio 0.300, 95% confidence interval 0.106-0.849, P = 0.023) was an independent predictor for RFS, but not NLR. Further subgroup analysis found that LMR could be a good RFS indicator in non-metastatic (P = 0.007) and G2 patients (P = 0.020) as well. For long-term survival analysis, patients with NLR ≤ 1.9 (P = 0.016) was shown to be associated with favorable OS, but NLR was not an independent factor validated via multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Preoperative LMR is an independent systemic inflammation marker to predict relapses in pNEN patients who underwent surgical resections for curative intentions, whose clinical value needs to be further verified by large sample-based prospective study.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?