Predictive Significance of the Preoperative Neutrophil-lymphocyte Ratio for Recurrence in Idiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis Patients

Abstract

Background To investigate and assess the correlation between inflammatory markers, such as the preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and the recurrence of idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM). Methods All patients with IGM who were free of malignancy or inflammatory diseases were included in this retrospective analysis between January 2013 and December 2019. On the basis of the presence or absence of recurrence, the patients were split into two groups. After collecting retrospective data, the relationship between patient characteristics, hematological markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), NLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and white blood cell count (WBC), and their connection with postoperative recurrence were assessed utilizing univariate and multivariate analyses, receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC curves), and logistic regression. Results Recurrences occurred in 40.0% (32/80) of the 80 patients over a median follow-up duration of 35.5 months (22.0-47.8 months). The recurrent group showed higher NLR and CRP than the non-recurrent group (PNLR = .003, PCRP = .02). Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and postoperative recurrence were associated (correlation coefficient r = .436, P = .01). The ROC curve’s ideal threshold, which had predictive value for IGM recurrence, was 2.18 (sensitivity: 46.9%; specificity: 14.6%). Conclusion The preoperative NLR is a simple and affordable way to predict IGM relapse, which is important for directing clinical work.

Immune pathogenesis of idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: from etiology toward therapeutic approaches

“…CD 57-positive NK cells even provided a practical basis for clinical staging of GLM. The Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), one of the preoperative inflammatory parameters, was significantly associated with IGM recurrence, highlighting that a high NLR predicted poor patient outcomes ( 105 , 106 ).…”