Clinical application of common inflammatory and nutritional indicators before treatment in prognosis evaluation of non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective real-world study

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the prognostic value of common clinical inflammatory and nutritional indicators before treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the real world.MethodA total of 5,239 patients with pathologically confirmed non-small cell lung cancer from 2011 to 2018 in the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University were selected. Their inflammatory and nutritional indicators (RDW, PDW, NLR, LMR, NMR, PLR, SII, PNI, TP, ALB, CYRFA21-1, CEA, CA125, NSE, α1-globulin, α2-globulin, β1-globulin, β2-globulin, and γ-globulin) before treatment were collected. From the total number, 1,049 patients were randomly sampled (18 to 20% of patients each year) and used as the validation set; the remaining 4,190 patients were used as the training set. According to the eighth edition of the guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and stage risk stratification of lung cancer, the patients were divided into four groups: stage I/II operable, stage III operable, stage III inoperable, and stage IV. We used the X-tile software to intercept and classify the cut-off values of each index in the validation set. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazard regression were used to screen the independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer and establish a prognostic model for 1, 3, and 5 years. The validation set was used to verify its performance. Finally, the Kaplan–Meier curve was used to assess the survival rate, and the corresponding nomogram was established for clinical use.ResultsAfter screening, no effective indicators were found in the stage I/II operable group. RDW and CA125 were effective indicators for the stage III operable group (cut-off values were 14.1 and 9.21, respectively, compared with the low-value group; univariate HR was 2.145 and 1.612, and multivariate HR was 1.491 and 1.691, respectively). CYRFA21-1 and CA125 were effective prognostic indicators for the stage III inoperable group (cut-off values were 10.62 and 44.10, respectively, compared with the low-value group; univariate HR was 1.744 and 1.342, and multivariate HR was 1.284 and 1.304, respectively). CYRFA21-1, CA125, NLR, and α1-globulin were effective indicators of prognosis in stage IV (cut-off values were 3.07, 69.60, 4.08, and 5.30, respectively, compared with the low-value group; univariate HR was 1.713, 1.339, 1.388, and 1.539; and multivariate HR was 1.407, 1.119, 1.191, and 1.110, respectively). The model was constructed with the best validation power in stage IV patients (C-index = 0.733, 0.749, and 0.75 at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively).ConclusionFor patients with stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer, some inflammatory markers, serum tumor markers, and nutritional indicators are independent prognostic factors. Combined with the general data of patients, the constructed prognostic evaluation model has the best efficacy in patients with stage IV and can be widely used in clinical practice.

Association of preoperative peripheral blood SOD and NLR with laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma

“…Bo Zhou [24] reviewed 101 patients and found that preoperative NLR ≥ 1.80 is independently associated with lymph node metastases for patients undergoing resection of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Gorkem Eskiizmir [25] retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients with benign laryngeal tumors, precancerous lesions, and malignant tumors, and found that there was no signi cant difference in NLR between the three groups, but NLR was a predictor of stage, lymph node metastasis, and distant metastasis. Therefore, they proposed that pretreatment NLR is a useful and reliable marker for predicting lymph node metastasis and prognosis.…”

Exploring Inflammatory Parameters in Lung Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Analysis

“…Although various studies point out the independent value of certain inflammatory biomarkers to predict overall survival [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ], some state that combined scoring could have a higher predictive potential concerning the prognosis [ 19 , 20 ].…”