Biomarkers for Evaluating the Inflammation Status in Patients with Cancer

Abstract

Inflammation can be a causative factor for carcinogenesis or can result from a consequence of cancer progression. Moreover, cancer therapeutic interventions can also induce an inflammatory response. Various inflammatory parameters are used to assess the inflammatory status during cancer treatment. It is important to select the most optimal biomarker among these parameters. Additionally, suitable biomarkers must be examined if there are no known parameters. We briefly reviewed the published literature for the use of inflammatory parameters in the treatment of patients with cancer. Most studies on inflammation evaluated the correlation between host characteristics, effect of interventions, and clinical outcomes. Additionally, the levels of C-reactive protein, albumin, lymphocytes, and platelets were the most commonly used laboratory parameters, either independently or in combination with other laboratory parameters and clinical characteristics. Furthermore, the immune parameters are classically examined using flow cytometry, immunohistochemical staining, and enzymelinked immunosorbent assay techniques. However, gene expression profiling can aid in assessing the overall peri-interventional immune status. The checklists of guidelines, such as STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy and REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies should be considered when designing studies to investigate the inflammatory parameters. Finally, the data should be interpreted after adjusting for clinically important variables, such as age and cancer stage.

The impact of PARPs and ADP-ribosylation on inflammation and host–pathogen interactions

“…The balance of the number of different immune cell types and their activation levels is crucial for health and disease. Overwhelming evidence has associated chronic inflammation with various pathological conditions and their potential causes, including atherosclerosis, cardiovascular events, cancer, autoimmune diseases, metabolic disorders, neurological diseases, and aging (Johnston et al 1987;Gisterå and Hansson 2017;Tabas and Lichtman 2017;de Vries and Quax 2018;Gomez et al 2018;Aday and Ridker 2019;Bercovici et al 2019;Di Benedetto et al 2019;Guner and Kim 2019;Horwitz et al 2019;O'Rourke et al 2019;Othman et al 2019;Trott and Fadel 2019). Many investigations have focused on the major role of macrophages in such contexts and mechanisms for their proinflammatory activation (Murray and Wynn 2011;Wynn and Vannella 2016;Gisterå and Hansson 2017;Tabas and Lichtman 2017;Decano and Aikawa 2018;Funes et al 2018;Swirski and Nahrendorf 2018;O'Rourke et al 2019).…”

Current status and future potential of predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitors in gastric cancer

“…Besides the above-mentioned biologic and molecular biomarker, laboratory parameters reflecting the condition of systemic inflammation are relatively economical to evaluate, easily measurable, repeatable and ready to use in daily clinical practice. 101 There is increasing evidence that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) can be an effective prognostic marker as well as predictive indicator related to ICIs for various solid tumours. 102 103 In fact, neutrophils are already known to be associated with detrimental outcomes in cancer, participating in different stages of the oncogenic process including tumour growth, invasion and metastases, while lymphocytes might affect a favourable impact on their tumour inhibiting properties.…”

Comparison of Nutritional Screening Tools in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastric Cancer

“…• Low FFMI (<15 for females and <17 for males) Validated parameters reflecting nutritional status, including albumin, lymphocyte count, and FFMI, were used to evaluate the screening tools (23)(24)(25). Commonly used parameters, such as weight, weight loss, and BMI, were not used for this evaluation, since all these represent items in the tools described above.…”