1. Introduction
The preferred treatment for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer is definitive radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy [1]. Although definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with cisplatin improves the survival of cervical cancer patients, approximately one-third suffer from tumor recurrence or progression [2,3]. The patients with recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer have limited systemic treatment options including combination chemotherapy with the addition of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, and the prognosis is poor [4,5]. Several clinicopathological factors affect tumor recurrence and survival of cervical cancer patients after treatment, including tumor size, lymph node involvement, and squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag) [6]. Recent investigations have focused on the relationship between tumor recurrence and tumor-associated inflammatory responses [7,8,9]. The inflammatory response plays an important role in the formation and progression of tumors and prognosis [9]. The association of diverse hematologic parameters of systemic inflammation with cancer prognosis has been investigated [8,10]. Among the hematologic parameters, complete blood count with a differential test from routine blood sampling is a simple, cost-effective, and readily available method. Elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) or platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) indicate poor prognosis in various solid tumors [7,11]. Changes in the NLR may be a useful predicting factor in advanced cancer patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents [12]. However, investigations into hematologic parameters for cervical cancer have mainly focused on NLR and its prognostic value [11]. Only a few studies focus on PLR as a predictor in cervical cancer, and the results of these studies are conflicting [13,14,15]. Furthermore, cut-off levels have not been determined.
The aim of the present study was to assess the prognostic significance of NLR and PLR on treatment outcomes and suggest the optimal cut-off levels in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) newly diagnosed histologically proven squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix at our institution between 2008 and 2018; (2) clinical and radiologic FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage IB-IVA with no other evidence of distant metastasis; (3) treatment using a combination of 3-dimensional conformal external beam radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and concurrent weekly cisplatin followed by high-dose-rate brachytherapy; and (4) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) incomplete treatment; (2) surgical intervention or other treatment before CCRT; (3) a history of cancer in another organ; (4) incomplete clinical information; and (5) clinical signs of infection or other inflammatory conditions, including pneumonia and articular rheumatism, or hematologic disease before CCRT. Finally, 148 patients were included in the study. The following patient data were collected and analyzed: age, primary tumor size, histological subtype, tumor stage, lymph node status, and pretreatment laboratory blood indicators.
2.2. Analysis of Inflammatory Markers
Neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet counts were obtained from routine blood tests within a day before treatment. NLR was defined as the absolute neutrophil count divided by the absolute lymphocyte count. The PLR was defined from the differential count as the absolute platelet count divided by the absolute lymphocyte count. Patients were divided into two groups based on the NLR and PLR; the high NLR-PLR group had high NLR and PLR and the low NLR-PLR group had either low NLR or low PLR. The relationships between survival outcomes and the pretreatment NLR and PLR were investigated.
2.3. Treatment
All patients received a combination of external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT). During radiotherapy, chemotherapy with weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2 weekly for 6 weeks) was administered. Patients received a median EBRT dose of 45 Gy (range, 45–50.4 Gy) at 1.8 Gy per fraction with whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) or extended-field pelvic radiotherapy (EF-PRT) by 3D-CRT. After WPRT or EF-PRT, the boost irradiation of 9 Gy (median, range, 5.4–18.0 Gy) by 3D-CRT or intensity-modulated radiotherapy was given at 1.8 Gy or 2 Gy per fraction to lymph node (LN) regions that had significant evidence of carcinoma involvement or LN more than 10 mm on MRI findings, involved parametrium, or involved regions of the pelvic sidewall. After adequate tumor regression, high-dose-rate ICBT was performed twice per week using an iridium-192 remote after-loading technique. The standard prescribed dose for each brachytherapy in our institution was 5 Gy to A-point in six fractions, twice weekly. The median prescribed A-point dose was 30 Gy (range, 25–35 Gy). The median total prescribed A-point radiobiological equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (α/β = 10) (EBRT + ICBT) was 84.35 Gy (range, 75.50–105.70 Gy; interquartile range, 81.75–90.6 Gy). The median overall irradiation time was 58 days (range, 45–98 days; interquartile range, 53.75–63.0 days).
2.4. Response Evaluation and Follow-Up
All patients were subjected to routine post-CCRT surveillance with physical examination, cervicovaginal cytology, laboratory tests (e.g., SCC-Ag), and imaging studies, including abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT. After completion of CCRT, the patients were evaluated every 3 months for the first 2 years and every 6 months thereafter. Recurrence was diagnosed through physical examination and diagnostic imaging (contrast-enhanced CT, MRI, and/or PET/CT scans) and was confirmed histologically via needle aspiration or excisional biopsy when possible.
2.5. Endpoint and Statistical Methods
The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) rate. The secondary endpoint was the disease-free survival (DFS) rate. We calculated all occurrences from the date of diagnosis to the date of relapse or the last date of follow-up. Deaths from other causes were censored at the time of the last follow-up.
Intergroup differences in continuous variables were compared using t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests, as appropriate. Intergroup differences in categorical data were analyzed by chi-square tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. Receiver operated characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed to determine the cut-off values for NLR and PLR that yield the joint maximum sensitivity and specificity. The survival analysis was based on the life-table Kaplan–Meier method. Survival comparisons between groups were made using the log-rank test. A multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazard model to predict survival. Two-sided tests were performed and p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS ver. 19 (SPCC Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Patient Characteristics and Grouping
The analysis included 148 patients. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Most patients (84.5%) presented with squamous cell carcinoma and 74.3% of patients were stage IIB or a more advanced stage. After completion of CCRT, radiologically complete remission was attained in 145 patients and radiologically partial remission was attained in 3 patients. Of the three patients who showed partial remission, one underwent a pelvic exenteration and the other two underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.
Based on the ROC analysis, NLR and PLR cut-off values for the survival analysis were 2.34 (area under the curve (AUC) 0.643) and 148.89 (AUC 0.632). The patients were divided into a high NLR-PLR group (NLR ≥ 2.34 and PLR ≥ 148.89) with 52 patients and a low NLR-PLR group (NLR < 2.34 or PLR < 148.89) with 96 patients. Patients in the high NLR-PLR group had relatively advanced FIGO stage, low pretreatment hemoglobin, and high pretreatment levels of SCC-Ag compared to these parameters in the low NLR-PLR group (p = 0.023, 0.004, and 0.049, respectively). No significant differences in age, histologic distribution, tumor size, or presence of lymph node metastasis were noted between the groups. Characteristics of patients and tumors according to the NLR-PLR groups are shown in Table 2. The prescribed radiation dose and the use of chemotherapeutic agent were not significantly different between the NLR-PLR groups.
3.2. Survival Rates and Analysis of Prognostic Factors
The median follow-up was 75 months, and 30 deaths were observed during that time. The 5-year OS and DFS rates for all patients were 81.4% and 78.2%, respectively. Patients with low pretreatment LNR (<2.34) had a significantly better OS (88.9% in 5-year) compared to patients with high pretreatment LNR (74.2% in 5-year) (p = 0.017). Patients with low pretreatment PLR (<148.89) had a marginally better OS (87.3% in 5-year) compared to patients with high pretreatment PLR (75.8% in 5-year), but this result was not statistically significant (p = 0.051).
In the NLR-PLR grouping analysis, the OS and DFS rates were significantly higher in patients with high NLR-PLR compared with the rates in patients with low NLR-PLR. The 5-year and 10-year OS rates were 69.4% and 63.6% in the high NLR-PLR group versus 88.1% and 86.2% in the low NLR-PLR group, respectively (p = 0.001 for both) (Figure 1). The 5-year and 10-year DFS rates were 67.0% and 63.3% in the high NLR-PLR group and 84.1% and 77.5% in the low NLR-PLR, respectively (p = 0.026 for both) (Figure 2).
Prognostic factors, including age, stage, histologic type, primary tumor size, presence of LN metastasis, standardized uptake value of PET, pretreatment hemoglobin, pretreatment NLR, pretreatment PLR, and pretreatment NLR-PLR group, were analyzed to assess their effects on survival. Prognostic factors related to OS and DFS are shown in Table 3. In the univariate analysis, FIGO stage, presence of LN metastasis, and pretreatment NLR-PLR group were the most significant prognostic factors for OS and DFS. Other factors, including age, primary tumor size, standardized uptake value of PET, and pretreatment SCC-Ag were not statistically significant.
In the multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of OS were high NLR-PLR (hazard ratio [HR], 2.435; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.106–5.361; p = 0.027) and FIGO stage (HR 2.659; 95% CI, 1.146–6.613; p = 0.024). The presence of LN metastasis (HR 2.805; 95% CI, 1.359–5.792; p = 0.005) was the only independent predictor of DFS, and pretreatment NLR-PLR group was not quite significant (p = 0.069). The results are shown in Table 4.
4. Discussion
This study revealed that the OS and DFS rate were significantly lower in the high NLR-PLR group compared with the OS and DFS rate in the low NLR-PLR group (p = 0.001 for OS, p = 0.026 for DFS; Figure 1 and Figure 2). High NLR-PLR was an independent predictor of overall survival (HR, 2.435; 95% CI, 1.106–5.361; p = 0.027) in the multivariate analysis.
Systemic inflammation is relevant to the tumor environment, and inflammatory cells, cytokines, and chemokines are involved in creating the tumor environment [9,16]. In particular, neutrophils and platelets promote tumor proliferation and migration, while lymphocytes work against tumor cells [17,18]. Therefore, high NLR and PLR may indicate tumor aggressiveness and host immunity. Several studies have been conducted to evaluate NLR and/or PLR as prognostic factors in cervical cancer [11,13,14,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. The studies, listed in Table 5 show the connection between prognosis in cervical cancer patients and NLR and/or PLR. Most of these studies analyzed NLR and PLR separately. Only two studies, the Chen et al. study [14] and the present study, combined NLR and PLR in the analysis; these studies verified the efficacy of combined NLR and PLR for predicting survival outcomes in cervical cancer. Chen et al. [14] included patients who underwent radical surgery +/− adjuvant RT or CCRT, whereas the present study targeted patients who received definitive CCRT.
Unlike tumor-specific markers, there are no consensus cut-off values for hematologic parameters. The values ranged from 1.6 to 4 for NLR and 133.02 to 210 for PLR (Table 5). Lee et al. reported reference values of 1.65 for NLR and 132.40 for PLR in healthy South Korean adults [26]. Drugs, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, liver, and inflammatory diseases, and infection may increase hematologic parameters, including NLR and PLR [27,28,29]. NLR and PLR values may also be affected by the co-existence of these conditions. Therefore, patients with benign inflammatory conditions such as infection, rheumatoid disease, or hematologic disease before treatment were excluded from the study.
Patients were grouped based on pretreatment cut-off NLR and PLR levels of 2.34 and 148.89 (high NLR-PLR group, pretreatment NLR ≥ 2.34 and PLR ≥ 148.89; low NLR-PLR group, pretreatment NLR < 2.34 or PLR < 148.89). These cut-off values are similar to the values reported by Zhang et al. (NLR cut-off value, 2.213; PLR cut-off value, 150.9) [19]. OS was worse for patients in the high NLR-PLR group compared with patients in the low NLR-PLR group, based on univariate and multivariate analyses. Despite the significant difference in the univariate analysis, DFS in the high NLR-PLR group was not significantly different from DFS in the low NLR-PLR group in the multivariate analysis. High NLR-PLR values correlated with advanced FIGO stage, low pretreatment hemoglobin, and a high level of pretreatment SCC-Ag (p = 0.023, 0.004, and 0.049, respectively). Thus, cervical cancer patients with advanced FIGO stage, anemia, or elevated SCC-Ag have poor survival outcomes after treatment [30,31,32].
The prognostic importance of the combined NLR and PLR measurements has been demonstrated in a variety of malignant tumors [33,34,35]. In cervical cancer, Onal et al. demonstrated a relationship between pretreatment NLR linked with PLR and treatment outcomes, including tumor burden and tumor response; Onal et al. reported cut-off values for NLR and PLR of 3.11 and 131.18 for predicting disease relapse [13]. Neutrophils and platelets may act together to resist chemotherapy [34,36]. Thus, scoring concepts using NLR and PLR were developed to predict gastric cancer. Consequently, patients with high NLR-PLR values tend to have higher tumor invasiveness [22]. Poor survival outcomes in the high NLR-PLR group in our study may be explained by the above-mentioned reasons.
The usefulness of blood test measurements during and after treatment has been demonstrated [24,37]. However, only a few studies used hematologic parameters obtained before treatment [11,13,14,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Zhang et al. investigated preoperative inflammatory hematologic parameters and the pathologic features of the cervical cancer patients treated with primary radical surgery; high NLR and PLR were related to bigger tumor size, deeper invasion of the stroma, and lymph node metastasis [19]. Thus, we infer that inflammatory markers measured before treatment reflect the nature of the intact initial tumor.
There are several limitations to this study due to the retrospective design and relatively small number of patients. Nevertheless, the follow-up duration of 75 months (median) was relatively long compared with other established studies (31.7 to 66 months, Table 5). In addition, we tried to include patients who received identical treatment for cervical cancer.
In conclusion, when the cut-off values of pre-CCRT NLR and PLR were set at 2.34 and 148.89, respectively, the combination of high pre-CCRT NLR and PLR was an independent prognostic factor for survival outcome in locally advanced cervical cancer. An increase in both pre-CCRT NLR and PLR predicts poor DFS and OS in locally advanced cervical cancer patients treated with definitive CCRT. Therefore, this hematologic parameter can be used to identify patients with poor prognoses in need of a more aggressive treatment approach.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: K.H.S. Data curation: K.H.S., J.W.L. Formal analysis: K.H.S. Investigation: K.H.S., J.W.L. Methodology: K.H.S., J.W.L. Project administration: K.H.S., J.W.L. Resources: K.H.S. Software: K.H.S. Supervision: K.H.S. Validation: K.H.S., J.W.L. Visualization: J.W.L. Writing―original draft: J.W.L. Writing―review & editing: K.H.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Daegu Catholic University Medical Center (IRB No. CR-21-046-L; date of approval: 2021-03-31).
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived because the database used in this study did not include personal identifiers and the study was retrospective and observational in design.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Figures and Tables
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Overall survival estimation using Kaplan–Meier analysis. The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates for the high NLR-PLR group vs. the low NLR-PLR group were 69.4% and 63.6% vs. 88.1% and 86.2% (p = 0.001).
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Disease-free survival estimation using Kaplan–Meier analysis. The 5- and 10-year disease-free survival rates for the high NLR-PLR group vs. the low NLR-PLR group were 67.0% and 63.3% vs. and 84.1% and 77.5% (p = 0.026).
Characteristics of patients and tumors.
| Characteristics | Value (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (years, mean ± SD) | 54.2 ± 12.4 |
| Primary tumor size (mm, mean ± SD) | 40.1 ± 12.7 |
| Histopathology | |
| SCC | 125 (84.5) |
| Adenocarcinoma or ASC | 23 (15.5) |
| FIGO Stage | |
| IB | 25 (16.9) |
| IIA | 13 (8.8) |
| IIB | 32 (21.6) |
| IIIA | 0 (0) |
| IIIB | 7 (4.7) |
| IIIC | 67 (45.3) |
| IVA | 4 (2.7) |
| Lymph node metastasis | |
| None | 78 (52.7) |
| Pelvic | 58 (39.2) |
| Para-aortic +/− Pelvic | 12 (8.1) |
| SUVmax of PET in primary lesion (median, range) | 9.84 (1.88–34.11) |
| Pretreatment hematologic parameter | |
| Hemoglobin (g/dL, mean ± SD) | 12.0 ± 1.8 |
| SCC Ag. Level (ng/mL, median, range) | 4.7 (0.5–69.9) |
| NLR (median, range) | 2.34 (0.99–12.06) |
| PLR (median, range) | 148.89 (58.47–363.45) |
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; ASC, adenosquamous carcinoma; FIGO, The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; PET, Positron Emission Tomography; SCC Ag., Squamous cell carcinoma related antigen; NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio.
Table 2Characteristics of patient and tumors according to NLR-PLR groups.
| Variables | Low NLR or Low PLR |
High NLR and High PLR |
p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years, mean ± SD) | 54.65 ± 12.32 | 52 ± 12.55 | 0.532 |
| Histopathology | |||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 83 (66.4) | 42 (33.6) | 0.362 |
| Adenocarcinoma or ASC | 13 (56.5) | 10 (43.5) | |
| FIGO stage | |||
| IB-IIB | 52 (74.3) | 18 (25.7) | 0.023 |
| III-IVA | 44 (56.4) | 34 (43.6) | |
| Tumor size, cm | |||
| <4 | 51 (71.8) | 20 (28.2) | 0.088 |
| ≥4 | 45 (58.4) | 32 (41.6) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | |||
| Absent | 53 (67.9) | 25 (32.1) | 0.407 |
| Present | 43 (61.4) | 27 (38.6) | |
| hemoglobin (g/dL, mean ± SD) | 12.27 ± 1.15 | 11.39 ± 2.22 | 0.004 |
| SCC Ag. Level (ng/mL, |
4.1 (0.5–48.2) | 8.6 (0.3–69.9) | 0.049 |
Abbreviations: NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio; SD, standard deviation; ASC, adenosquamous carcinoma; FIGO, The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; SCC Ag., Squamous cell carcinoma related antigen.
Table 3Univariate survival analysis.
| Variable | Number of Patients | OS (%) | p Value | DFS (%) | p Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-Year | 10-Year | 5-Year | 10-Year | ||||
| Age (years) | |||||||
| <60 | 100 | 84.7 | 83.1 | 0.082 | 80.6 | 73.0 | 0.620 |
| ≥60 | 48 | 74.4 | 68.4 | 73.2 | 73.2 | ||
| FIGO Stage | |||||||
| IB and II | 70 | 90.9 | 89.0 | 0.002 | 88.1 | 80.0 | 0.007 |
| III and IVA | 78 | 72.8 | 67.5 | 69.1 | 65.6 | ||
| Pathologic type | |||||||
| SCC | 125 | 81.9 | 77.9 | 0.787 | 81.5 | 74.9 | 0.024 |
| AC/ASC | 23 | 78.3 | 78.3 | 60.6 | 60.6 | ||
| Tumor size | |||||||
| <4 cm | 71 | 84.3 | 78.0 | 0.933 | 79.4 | 71.7 | 0.775 |
| ≥4 cm | 77 | 78.6 | 78.6 | 76.9 | 74.4 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | |||||||
| Absent | 78 | 87.8 | 86.2 | 0.009 | 88.0 | 81.4 | 0.002 |
| Present | 70 | 74.1 | 67.5 | 66.9 | 62.4 | ||
| Pretreatment Hb. | |||||||
| Normal | 84 | 87.9 | 87.9 | 0.006 | 77.8 | 68.8 | 0.902 |
| Low (<12 g/dL) | 64 | 72.9 | 66.1 | 78.9 | 76.0 | ||
| Pretreatment NLR | |||||||
| <2.34 | 74 | 88.9 | 86.3 | 0.017 | 80.9 | 74.1 | 0.415 |
| ≥2.34 | 74 | 74.2 | 70.2 | 75.3 | 70.6 | ||
| Pretreatment PLR | |||||||
| <148.89 | 74 | 87.3 | 84.7 | 0.051 | 83.6 | 72.2 | 0.243 |
| ≥148.89 | 74 | 75.8 | 71.9 | 72.7 | 70.3 | ||
| Pretreatment NRL-PLR group | |||||||
| Low NLR or PLR | 96 | 88.1 | 86.2 | 0.001 | 84.1 | 77.5 | 0.026 |
| High NLR and PLR | 52 | 69.4 | 63.6 | 67.0 | 63.3 | ||
Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; DFS, disease free survival; FIGO, The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; AC, adenocarcinoma; ASC, adenosquamous carcinoma; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; PET, Positron Emission Tomography; SCC Ag., Squamous cell carcinoma related antigen; Hb, hemoglobin; NLR, neutro-phil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio; SD, standard deviationOS, overall survival; DFS, disease free survival; FIGO, The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; AC, adenocarcinoma; ASC, adenosquamous carcinoma; LN, lymph node; SUVmax, maximum standardized uptake value; PET, Positron Emission Tomography; SCC Ag., Squamous cell carcinoma related antigen; Hb, hemoglobin; NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio; SD, standard deviation.
Table 4Multivariate survival analysis.
| Variables | Risk Factors | HR (95% CI) | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Survival | |||
| FIGO Stage | IB, II vs. III, IVA | 2.752 (1.146–6.613) | 0.024 |
| Pretreatment NLR-PLR group | low vs. both high group | 2.435 (1.106–5.361) | 0.027 |
| Disease-free survival | |||
| Lymph node metastasis | Absent vs. Present | 2.805 (1.359–5.792) | 0.005 |
| Pretreatment NLR-PLR group | low vs. both high group | 1.884 (0.952–3.727) | 0.069 |
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; FIGO, The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; AC, adenocarcinoma; ASC, adenosquamous carcinoma.
Table 5Multivariate Studies analyzing the association between the prognosis and pretreatment NLR and/or PLR in cervical cancer 1.
| Study | Patient Number | Histologic |
FIGO |
Main Treatment |
Prognostic |
NLT Cut-Off Value | PLR Cut-Off Value | Follow-Up Duration (Median, Months) | Results (Significant Parameter) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | |||||||||
| Zhang et al. [19] | 460 | SCC, AC | I-II | OP ± RT | NLR, PLR | 2.213 | 150.9 | 69 | NLR: DFS, OS | NLR: DFS |
| Onal et al. [13] | 235 | SCC, AC | IB2-IVA | CCRT + BT | NLR, PLR | 3.03 | 3.03 | 31.7 | NLR: DFS, OS |
NLR: DFS, OS |
| Chen et al. [14] | 407 | SCC, non-SCC | IB-IIA | OP ± RT/CCRT | NLR, PLR, combined NLR and PLR | 2.59 for DFS, |
152.02 for DFS |
NR | NLR, PLR, Combined NLR and PLR 2: DFS, OS | |
| Jonska-Gmyrek et al. [20] | 94 | AC | IA-IV | Stage IA, IB1, IIA: OP + RT/CCRT. |
NLR, PLR | 1.6 | 158 | 66 | NLR: DFS |
NLR: DFS, OS for all patients |
| Holub et al. [21] | 151 | SCC, AC, OTC | I-IV | RT and/or CTx, and/or OP | NLR, PLR | 3.8 | 210.0 | 43.8 | NLR, PLR: OS | (not significant) |
| Prabawa et al. [22] | 282 | SCC, AC | I-IV | NR | NLR, PLR | 3.38 | 172.05 | NR | NLR, PLR: associated with cervical cancer invasiveness | |
| Trinh et al. [24] | 99 | SCC, AC, ASC, CIN III, OTC | I-IV | CCRT + BT | NLR, PLR | 1.65 | 186.93 | 48.99 3 | NLR: DFS, OS | |
| Lima et al. [25] | 102 | SCC, AC | I-IV | Stage I: OP |
NLR, PLR | 4 | 165.45 | NR | NLR, PLR: DFS, OS | NLR: DFS, OS |
| Current study | 148 | SCC, AC, ASC | IB-IVA | CCRT + BT | Combined NLR and PLR | 2.34 | 148.89 | 75 | DFS, OS | OS |
1 The parameters most important to this Table were pretreatment NLR and PLR among the several hematologic parameters. 2 Combined NLR and PLR were more significantly associated with predicting DFS and OS. 3 Converting years to months. 4 They commented that 40 (39.2 %) received surgery and 62 (60.8 %) patients received radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy among all patients. Abbreviations: NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; AC, adenocarcinoma; OP, operation (=radical surgery); RT, radiotherapy; DFS, disease free survival; OS, overall survival; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; BT, brachytherapy; NR, not reported; OTC, other type of carcinoma; CTx, chemotherapy; ASC, adenosquamous carcinoma; CIN III, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3.
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
