Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Relation of baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio to survival and toxicity in head and neck cancer patients treated with (chemo-) radiation

Radiation Oncology201813:216

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1159-y

  • Received: 20 June 2018
  • Accepted: 22 October 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

A high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a marker of systemic inflammation and together with the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is associated with worse outcomes in several solid tumors. We investigated the prognostic value of NLR and PLR in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with primary or adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy ((C)RT).

Methods

A retrospective chart review of consecutive patients with HNSCC was performed. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and PLR were computed using complete blood counts (CBCs) performed within 10 days before treatment start. The prognostic role of NLR and PLR was evaluated with univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses adjusting for disease-specific prognostic factors. NLR and PLR were assessed as log-transformed continuous variables (log NLR and log PLR). Endpoints of interest were overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and acute toxicity.

Results

We analyzed 186 patients treated from 2007 to 2010. Primary sites were oropharynx (45%), oral cavity (28%), hypopharynx (14%), and larynx (13%). Median follow-up was 49 months. Higher NLR was associated with OS (adjusted HR per 1 unit higher log NLR = 1.81 (1.16–2.81), p = 0.012), whereas no association could be shown with LRFS (HR = 1.49 (0,83-2,68), p = 0.182), DRFS (HR = 1.38 (0.65–3.22), p = 0.4), or acute toxicity grade ≥ 2. PLR was not associated with outcome, nor with toxicity.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that in HNSCC patients treated with primary or adjuvant (C)RT, NLR is an independent predictor of mortality, but not disease-specific outcomes or toxicity. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a readily available biomarker that could improve pre-treatment prognostication and may be used for risk-stratification.

Keywords

  • Head and neck
  • Squamous cell carcinoma
  • Inflammation
  • Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio
  • Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio
  • Toxicity

Background

Risk stratification of patients diagnosed with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) poses an important challenge [1]. Currently, some of the widely used factors are smoking and human papillomavirus (HPV) status, age, performance status, and tumor stage. Nomograms based on baseline characteristics can enhance prognostic prediction [2].

Inflammation is a hallmark of cancer [3], which is shown to play an important role in tumor development and progression [46]. An elevation of circulating neutrophil count is thought to be the result of tumor cells releasing cytokines, which stimulate the bone marrow to produce neutrophils [79]. Cytokines released by neutrophils also promote angiogenesis leading to tumor growth and metastasis [1015]. There is an increasing interest in the use of hematological parameters as prognostic factors in malignancies. Neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet counts, either as individual values or in relation to each other, could be associated with the cancer prognosis [16, 17]. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is an emerging marker of host inflammation, which reflects the relation between circulating neutrophil and lymphocyte counts. It can be easily calculated from routine complete blood counts (CBCs) with differentiation. The independent prognostic value of NLR has been shown for a variety of solid malignancies [1720]. In addition to NLR, the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) has also been shown to be a potential prognostic factor [2, 19]. Several studies involving HNSCC have shown an association between inflammation and worse prognosis [2127]. However, information about the possible value of pretreatment NLR or PLR on toxicity is limited [1829].

In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the prognostic impact of pretreatment NLR and PLR on oncological outcomes and toxicity in HNSCC patients treated with primary or adjuvant curative-intended (chemo-) radiotherapy ((C)RT). We hypothesized that elevated NLR and/or PLR are associated with detrimental survival; we also explored NRL and PLR associations with acute treatment-related toxicity since it has prognostic value in primary and adjuvant (C)RT for HNSCC [30, 31].

Methods

Patient selection

Medical records of HNSCC patients consecutively treated with primary or adjuvant curative-intent intensity-modulated radiation therapy with or without concomitant systemic therapy between January 2007 and December 2010 at the Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Patients diagnosed with oral cavity (OCC), oropharynx (OC), hypopharynx (HC) and laryngeal cancers (LC) were included in the analysis. History of another malignancy within 5 years of diagnosis, prior radiation to the head and neck, non-squamous cell carcinoma histology, distant metastases, lack of differentiated CBC within 10 days before oncologic surgery or RT start, and early abortion of RT were defined as exclusion criteria. This study was approved by the local ethics committee (289/2014).

Treatment and follow-up

The standard treatment was based on institutional policies following the multidisciplinary tumor board decision as previously published [32, 33]. All cases were presented at the weekly institutional interdisciplinary head-and-neck tumor board. After completion of staging examinations and final TNM staging (AJCC), selection of treatment modalities and treatment sequencing were defined. The standard treatment in OCC was to perform surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) [30, 32], while in OC, HC and LC the joint recommendations of the multidisciplinary meeting was primary RT [31, 33]. Case-based decisions were made concerning the use of concomitant systemic therapy and up-front neck dissection. The delivery of radiotherapy, the definition of clinical target volume (CTV) and planned target volume (PTV) followed departmental guidelines [32, 33] based on international recommendations [3436]. All treatment plans were contoured and calculated using Eclipse treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The standard concomitant therapy consisted of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 in three-week intervals for all patients. In few cases of induction chemotherapy, cisplatin, docetaxel, and 5-fluorouracil were used. Patients not deemed medically fit for cisplatin chemotherapy because of pre-existing co-morbidities were evaluated for weekly treatment with monoclonal antibody cetuximab [37] or carboplatin three weekly. Pre-treatment CBC with differential values was used to calculate NLR and PLR.

Potential causes of changes in the CBC (e.g. infection, steroid use) were identified, and patients were excluded from the analysis. Patients were regularly followed, and toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03 (https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf).

Statistical analysis

NLR was calculated by dividing absolute neutrophil count by absolute lymphocyte count measured in peripheral blood. PLR was calculated by dividing absolute thrombocyte count by absolute lymphocyte count. Due to its non-normal distribution, NLR and PLR were loge-transformed to obtain symmetric distributions and then analyzed as continuous variables. Frequencies and percentages are reported for categorical variables, medians with range or interquartile range for continuous variables. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) and distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS). Time-to-event was calculated for OS, LRFS, and DRFS from the start of RT to death (OS), locoregional relapse (LRFS), and distant recurrence (DRFS), respectively, with censoring of patients without such events at last follow up. Median times to event were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. The prognostic value of NLR and PLR, and other variables (i.e. age, gender, smoking status, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), UICC stage, tumor grade, hemoglobin level) were assessed by univariable Cox regression analysis. Subsequently, multivariable analysis with forward elimination was planned with inclusion of all variables with a p-value < 0.05 in the univariable analysis. The association of NLR and PLR with acute and late toxicities (i.e. pain, dermatitis, mucositis, dysphagia, xerostomia) was examined using logistic regression. Analyses were carried out using SPSS version 23 (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL). The threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, and no correction for multiple testing was performed.

Results

Patients

One hundred and eighty-six patients were included in the study. Patients’ and disease characteristics are presented in Table 1. The majority of patients were male and in good performance status (KPS ≥ 70). The primary tumor was located in the oral cavity or oropharynx in approximately 75% of the cases, and more than half of all patients had UICC stage IVA or IVB disease. Median NLR and PLR were 3.28 and 189, respectively. There was a statistically significant correlation between NLR and PLR (Spearman’s rho = 0.65, p < 0.001). Baseline NLR and PLR were not associated with gender, smoking status, site of the primary tumor, stage of disease or tumor grade.
Table 1

Patients’ and disease characteristics

Age

 median (range), years

61 (41–88)

  ≤ 60, N (%)

86 (46)

  > 60 to ≤70, N (%)

64 (34)

  > 70 to ≤80, N (%)

27 (15)

  > 80, N (%)

9 (5)

Gender, N (%)

 female

40 (22)

 male

146 (79)

Smoking status

 never smoker

17 (6)

 previous smoker

33 (31)

 current smoker

58 (54)

 missing

108

High risk alcohol consumption

 No

49 (46)

 Yes

54 (51)

 in the past

4 (4)

 missing

79

Karnofsky Performance Status

 median (range)

90 (50–100)

  > 70, N (%)

160 (86)

  ≤ 70, N (%)

26 (14)

Oncological resection of primary tumor

 yes

56 (30)

 no

130 (70)

Induction chemotherapy

 yes

15 (8)

 no

171 (92

Concomitant systemic therapy

 no

38 (20)

 cisplatin or carboplatin

125 (67)

 cetuximab

23 (12)

Site of primary tumor, N (%)

 oral cavity

52 (28)

 oropharynx

83 (45)

 hypopharynx

27 (15)

 larynx

24 (13)

UICC stage, N (%)

 I

5 (3)

 II

11 (6)

 III

44 (24)

 IV

126 (68)

Tumor grade, N (%)

 G1

1 (1)

 G2

113 (61)

 G3

72 (39)

Hemoglobin (g/dL)

 median (IQR)

13.3 (12.0–14.4)

 missing

12

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

 median (IQR)

3.28 (2.15–4.70)

 missing

20

Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio

 median (IQR)

189 (136–254)

 missing

20

IQR inter-quartile range, UICC Union for International Cancer Control

Overall survival

At a median follow-up time of 40 months, 60 patients (32%) died; median OS was not reached. Higher NLR was associated with lower OS (Table 2). When dividing the population into two groups according to the median NLR, there was a significant OS difference between the groups (Fig. 1). For PLR there was a non-significant association between higher PLR and lower OS (Fig. 2). On univariable analysis loge NLR was associated with OS. Also, older age, worse Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS ≤ 70), and UICC stage IV were associated with lower OS. Performance status, UICC stage IV and loge NLR remained of prognostic value in multivariable analysis (Table 2).
Table 2

Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis of overall survival

 

univariable analysis

multivariable analysis

HR (95% CI)

P

HR (95% CI)

P

Age

per 10 years older

1.32 (1.03–1.69)

0.026*

  

Gender

male (vs. female)

1.17 (0.61–2.25)

0.639

  

Smoking status

never smoker (vs. current/past)

0.66 (0.20–2.19)

0.492

  

Karnofsky Performance Status

per 10 higher

0.76 (0.62–0.92)

0.005*

0.76 (0.62–0.98)

0.030*

UICC stage

IVA-B (vs. I-III)

1.87 (1.01–3.47)

0.045*

  

Tumor grade

G3 (vs. G1-G2)

0.91 (0.54–1.54)

0.731

  

Hemoglobin

per 1 g/dL higher

0.89 (0.77–1.04)

0.143

  

log NLR

per 1 log NLR higher

1.81 (1.16–2.81)

0.009*

1.58 (1.01–2.47)

0.043*

log PLR

per 1 log PLR higher

1.62 (0.99–2.63)

0.054

  

CI confidence interval, G tumor grade, HR hazard ratio, log NLR natural logarithm of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, log PLR natural logarithm of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, UICC Union for International Cancer Control; *statistically significant

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Overall survival of NLR higher than median vs. equal or lower than median

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Overall survival of PLR higher than median vs. equal or lower than median

Recurrence

Of the variables tested, only UICC stage IV was associated with increased loco-regional, distant, and any recurrence rate, whereas no association was found for all other variables tested (Table 3). Consequently, no multivariable analyses were conducted. In patients with high NLR, recurrences occurred earlier, but the correlation was not statistically significant (Fig. 3).
Table 3

Univariable Cox regression analysis of recurrence

 

Univariable analysis

HR (95% CI)

P

Loco-regional recurrence (38 events)

 Age

per 10 years older

1.08 (0.80–1.48)

0.607

 Gender

male vs. female

1.21 (0.53–2.75)

0.648

 Smoking status

never smoker (vs. current/past)

1.68 (0.34–8.31)

0.526

 Karnofsky Performance Status

KPS over 70

0.55 (0.23–1.35)

0.191

 UICC stage

IVA-B (vs. I-III)

3.43 (1.34–8.78)

0.010*

 Tumor grade

G3 (vs. G1-G2)

0.78 (0.40–1.53)

0.477

 Hemoglobin

per 1 g/dL higher

0.92 (0.76–1.13)

0.424

 log NLR

per 1 log NLR higher

1.49 (0.83–2.68)

0.182

 log PLR

per 1 log PLR higher

1.65 (0.88–3.10)

0.117

Distant recurrence (20 events)

 Age

per 10 years older

0.77 (0.49–1.22)

0.272

 Gender

male

2.48 (0.57–10.7)

0.224

 Smoking status

never smoker (vs. current/past)

0.04 (0.00–22.86)

0.314

 Karnofsky Performance Status

KPS over 70

2.53 (0.34–18.94)

0.367

 UICC stage

IV (vs. I-III)

9.91 (1.33–74.03)

0.025*

 Tumor grade

G3 (vs. lower)

1.53 (0.64–3.68)

0.342

 Hemoglobin

per 1 g/dL higher

1.11 (0.84–1.46)

0.472

 log NLR

per 1 log NLR higher

1.38 (0.65–2.91)

0.400

 log PLR

per 1 log PLR higher

1.44 (0.65–3.22)

0.371

Any recurrence (46 events)

 Age

per 10 years older

1.04 (0.78–1.28)

0.779

 Gender

male

1.30 (0.61–2.79)

0.501

 Smoking status

never smoker (vs. current/past)

0.60 (014–2.63)

0.501

 Karnofsky Performance Status

KPS over 70

0.74 (0.33–1.65)

0.457

 Localization

larynx or hypopharynx (vs. other)

1.24 (0.66–2.33)

0.497

 UICC stage

IV (vs. I-III)

3.49 (1.48–8.24)

0.004*

 Tumor grade

G3 (vs. G1-G2)

0.96 (0.53–1.74)

0.891

 Hemoglobin

per 1 g/dL higher

0.95 (0.79–1.14)

0.948

 log NLR

per 1 log NLR higher

1.49 (0.88–2.53)

0.134

 log PLR

per 1 log PLR higher

1.55 (0.88–2.74)

0.128

CI confidence interval, G tumor grade, HR hazard ratio, log NLR natural logarithm of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, log PLR natural logarithm of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, UICC Union for International Cancer Control; *statistically significant

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Recurrence-free survival of NLR higher than median vs. equal or lower than median

Toxicity

Rates and grades of the most common acute toxicities are summarized in Table 4. There was no correlation between baseline NLR or PLR and the grade of toxicity (data not shown).
Table 4

Selected toxicities of 183 patients (toxicities of 3 patients missing)

 

G1

G2

G3

G4

Symptoms prior to radiotherapy

 Pain

52 (28)

30 (16)

2 (1)

0

 Dysphagia

52 (28)

32 (17)

11 (6)

0

Acute toxicities

 Pain

42 (23)

91 (49)

45 (24)

1 (1)

 Dermatitis

44 (24)

117 (63)

22 (12)

0

 Mucositis

31 (17)

110 (59)

40 (22)

0

 Dysphagia

23 (12)

80 (43)

70 (38)

1 (1)

 Xerostomia

63 (34)

8 (4)

0

0

Grades according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03

Discussion

NLR is the object of numerous previously published studies. Not only in oncology but also in other disciplines, blood counts reflecting the complexity of the immune system can be easily obtained at low costs, which may impact daily clinical practice. About 15–20% of all cancer deaths worldwide seem to be associated with underlying infections and inflammatory reactions [38]. Many triggers of chronic inflammation increase the risk of developing cancer. These triggers, for example, include microbial infections such as Helicobacter pylori (associated with stomach cancer), inflammatory bowel disease (associated with bowel cancer) and prostatitis (associated with prostate cancer) [38]. Despite conflicting studies, treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents has been associated with reduced cancer incidence and mortality [3841]. Increased NLR is associated with poorer outcomes in many solid tumors, be it early or advanced stage cancer [17]. An early decrease in NLR may be associated with more favorable outcomes and higher response rates [42], whereas an increase in NLR in the first weeks of treatment had the opposite effect [42].

In this study with a relatively large cohort of HNSCC patients treated with (C)RT with curative intention, an elevated NLR at baseline was associated with a shorter OS but not with disease recurrence or toxicities. Our findings of a negative prognostic role of NLR are in accordance with other studies [26, 43] that have investigated NLR in HNSCC. In contrast to our results, Rassouli et al. [44] have demonstrated a statistically significant impact of PLR on OS. Worth to note, such associations were observed at various cut-offs in different studies. They have also shown that an increased NLR was not only associated with decreased OS but with higher recurrence rates too [44]; which was not shown in our cohort and another study from the United Kingdom [45].

Along with the increased NLR in malignant disease, a possible explanation for a lower OS could also be a cause of death not attributable to cancer, but other co-morbidities such as a cardiac cause where it could also be shown that an increased NLR is predictive for cardiac mortality [46]. It is also known that smokers have a “smoker’s leukocytosis” [37, 38, 47, 48]. In our cohort, most patients are at least ex-smokers (80%), and at least one third continued smoking during and after radiation. Therefore, it is possible that the patients with a smoker’s leukocytosis have died earlier from smoking-related comorbidities [49].

Several limitations to our study should be considered. First, this was a retrospective analysis with possible selection bias and confounding variables. We included 16 patients (9%) with early-stage disease and 15 (8%) patients who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which may have introduced some heterogeneity to our cohort. Second, we were unable to capture data on HPV status systematically. Studies have shown an important interaction between HPV status, immunomodulation and clinical outcome [50]. Therefore, there might be different results in HPV-associated and unassociated tumors [51]. Since this is a retrospective study, there might be unknown causes of CBC changes that have not been identified. Beside patient and tumor-specific factors which may influence the complex cascades of the immune system, it must also be noted that despite clinical benefit, the dichotomization or grouping of continuous variables in statistical analysis is accompanied by a loss of the statistical power. To account for this, NLR and PLR were analyzed as (log-transformed) continuous variables. Lastly, an overestimation of statistical significance due to multiple testing is possible. Although these results should be validated in other cohorts, we reproduced some of the previously reported studies [26, 43] on the interface of systemic inflammatory pathways and OS. Therefore, we provide data on surrogate values for inflammation as predictors of clinical outcomes; however, a causal relationship and its impact on tumor aggressiveness or tumor microenvironment warrants further investigation.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that in HNSCC patients treated with primary or adjuvant (C)RT, NLR is an independent predictor of OS. NLR is a readily available biomarker that could improve pre-treatment risk stratification.

Abbreviations

(C)RT: 

(Chemo)radiotherapy

CBCs: 

Complete blood counts

CI: 

Confidence interval

DRFS: 

Distant recurrence-free survival

G: 

Tumor grade

HC: 

Hypopharyngeal cancer

HNSCC: 

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

HR: 

Hazard ratio

IQR: 

Inter-quartile range

LC: 

Laryngeal cancer

log NLR: 

Natural logarithm of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

log PLR: 

Natural logarithm of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio

LRFS: 

Locoregional recurrence-free survival

NLR: 

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

OC: 

Oropharyngeal cancer

OCC: 

Oral cavity cancer

OS: 

Overall survival

PLR: 

Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio

RT: 

Radiotherapy

UICC: 

Union for International Cancer Control

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Andreas Geretschläger and Dr. Michael Schmücking for their collaboration with the clinical data.

Funding

No funding was received.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

Each author had participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. AD, BB, and AT designed the study. AT performed the statistical analysis. BB collected the data and together with AT, KZ, OE, MW, MS, RG, and DMA interpreted the results. The manuscript was written by BB, AD and AT, and all other authors reviewed and finally approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All patients provided written consent for the use of their medical data for research purposes. Approval of the regional ethics committee (Kantonale Ethikkommission Bern – 289/2014) was obtained.

Consent for publication

All patients provided written consent for the publication of research performed with their medical data.

Competing interests

No potential conflicts of interests are to declare.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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 Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
(2)
Department of Medical Oncology, St. Claraspital Basel and Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
(3)
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland
(4)
Department of Radiation Oncology, Stadtspital Triemli, Zürich, Switzerland
(5)
Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland

References

  1. Curado MP, Boyle P. Epidemiology of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma not related to tobacco or alcohol. Curr Opin Oncol. 2013;25(3):229–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Templeton AJ, et al. Prognostic role of platelet to lymphocyte ratio in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2014;23(7):1204–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M. Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell. 2010;140(6):883–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. O'Callaghan DS, et al. The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(12):2024–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Aggarwal BB, Vijayalekshmi RV, Sung B. Targeting inflammatory pathways for prevention and therapy of cancer: short-term friend, long-term foe. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(2):425–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Dumitru CA, Lang S, Brandau S. Modulation of neutrophil granulocytes in the tumor microenvironment: mechanisms and consequences for tumor progression. Semin Cancer Biol. 2013;23(3):141–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Tazzyman S, Niaz H, Murdoch C. Neutrophil-mediated tumour angiogenesis: subversion of immune responses to promote tumour growth. Semin Cancer Biol. 2013;23(3):149–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Ocana A, et al. Neutrophils in cancer: prognostic role and therapeutic strategies. Mol Cancer. 2017;16(1):137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Bekes EM, et al. Tumor-recruited neutrophils and neutrophil TIMP-free MMP-9 regulate coordinately the levels of tumor angiogenesis and efficiency of malignant cell intravasation. Am J Pathol. 2011;179(3):1455–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregory AD, Houghton AM. Tumor-associated neutrophils: new targets for cancer therapy. Cancer Res. 2011;71(7):2411–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Demers M, Wagner DD. Neutrophil extracellular traps: a new link to cancer-associated thrombosis and potential implications for tumor progression. Oncoimmunology. 2013;2(2):e22946.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Cools-Lartigue J, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps sequester circulating tumor cells and promote metastasis. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(8):3446–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Donskov F. Immunomonitoring and prognostic relevance of neutrophils in clinical trials. Semin Cancer Biol. 2013;23(3):200–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Tazzyman S, Lewis CE, Murdoch C. Neutrophils: key mediators of tumour angiogenesis. Int J Exp Pathol. 2009;90(3):222–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Takenaka Y, et al. Prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2018;40(3):647-655.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Templeton AJ, et al. Prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(6):dju124.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Chowdhary M, et al. Post-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts for overall survival in brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neuro-Oncol. 2018;139(3):689–97.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Proctor MJ, et al. A comparison of inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with cancer. A Glasgow inflammation outcome study. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(17):2633–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Guthrie GJ, et al. The systemic inflammation-based neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio: experience in patients with cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;88(1):218–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. An X, et al. Elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts poor prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Tumour Biol. 2011;32(2):317–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Fang HY, et al. Refining the role of preoperative C-reactive protein by neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(11):2690–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. He JR, et al. Pretreatment levels of peripheral neutrophils and lymphocytes as independent prognostic factors in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck. 2012;34(12):1769–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Khandavilli SD, et al. Serum C-reactive protein as a prognostic indicator in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(10):912–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Millrud CR, et al. The activation pattern of blood leukocytes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is correlated to survival. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51120.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Perisanidis C, et al. High neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is an independent marker of poor disease-specific survival in patients with oral cancer. Med Oncol. 2013;30(1):334.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimm M, Lazariotou M. Clinical relevance of a new pre-treatment laboratory prognostic index in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Med Oncol. 2012;29(3):1435–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Khoja L, et al. The full blood count as a biomarker of outcome and toxicity in ipilimumab-treated cutaneous metastatic melanoma. Cancer Med. 2016;5(10):2792–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Shaverdian N, et al. Pretreatment immune parameters predict for overall survival and toxicity in early-stage non-small-cell lung Cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Clin Lung Cancer. 2016;17(1):39–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Wolff HA, et al. High-grade acute organ toxicity as positive prognostic factor in adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer. Radiology. 2011;258(3):864–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Tehrany N, et al. High-grade acute organ toxicity and p16(INK4A) expression as positive prognostic factors in primary radio(chemo)therapy for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Strahlenther Onkol. 2015;191(7):566–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Geretschlager A, et al. Outcome and patterns of failure after postoperative intensity modulated radiotherapy for locally advanced or high-risk oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Radiat Oncol. 2012;7:175.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Geretschlager A, et al. Definitive intensity modulated radiotherapy in locally advanced hypopharygeal and laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: mature treatment results and patterns of locoregional failure. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10(1):20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Gregoire V, et al. CT-based delineation of lymph node levels and related CTVs in the node-negative neck: DAHANCA, EORTC, GORTEC, NCIC, RTOG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69(3):227–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Eisbruch A, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: emphasis on the selection and delineation of the targets. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002;12(3):238–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Eisbruch A, et al. Recurrences near base of skull after IMRT for head-and-neck cancer: implications for target delineation in high neck and for parotid gland sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(1):28–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Bonner JA, et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(6):567–78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Mantovani A, et al. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature. 2008;454(7203):436–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Koehne CH, Dubois RN. COX-2 inhibition and colorectal cancer. Semin Oncol. 2004;31(2 7):12–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Flossmann E, et al. Effect of aspirin on long-term risk of colorectal cancer: consistent evidence from randomised and observational studies. Lancet. 2007;369(9573):1603–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Chan AT, Ogino S, Fuchs CS. Aspirin and the risk of colorectal cancer in relation to the expression of COX-2. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(21):2131–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Templeton AJ, et al. Change in neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in response to targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma as a prognosticator and biomarker of efficacy. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):358–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Haddad CR, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in head and neck cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015;59(4):514–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Rassouli A, et al. Systemic inflammatory markers as independent prognosticators of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2015;37(1):103–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Wong BY, et al. Prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2016;38(1):E1903–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Kruk M, et al. Association of non-specific inflammatory activation with early mortality in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome treated with primary angioplasty. Circ J. 2008;72(2):205–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Kondo H, Kusaka Y, Morimoto K. Effects of lifestyle on hematologic parameters; I. analysis of hematologic data in association with smoking habit and age. Sangyo Igaku. 1993;35(2):98–104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Kawada T. Smoking-induced leukocytosis can persist after cessation of smoking. Arch Med Res. 2004;35(3):246–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Friedman GD, Dales LG, Ury HK. Mortality in middle-aged smokers and nonsmokers. N Engl J Med. 1979;300(5):213–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Rachidi S, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and overall survival in all sites of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2016;38 Suppl 1:E1068-74View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Huang SH, et al. Prognostic value of pretreatment circulating neutrophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes in oropharyngeal cancer stratified by human papillomavirus status. Cancer. 2015;121(4):545–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement