1. Introduction
Endometrial cancer is the second most prevalent gynecological malignancy worldwide, with an overall favorable prognosis. However, some patients have a high risk of recurrence and a poor prognosis. Surgical staging is a pivotal step in the management of endometrial cancer. The pathological evaluation of surgical specimens can determine the need for postoperative adjuvant treatment to minimize recurrence [1,2]. The clinical performance of patients, including their hematological parameters, is fundamentally linked to surgery.
The scientific literature has demonstrated that cancer progression and survival outcomes are influenced by various factors, in addition to tumor characteristics. Patient age, clinical performance, nutrition, and hematological status play significant roles in determining their outcomes [3,4]. Systemic inflammation associated with cancer is a well-known factor that affects patient prognosis for different types of cancer [5,6,7].
Red cell distribution width (RDW) is a hematological parameter that measures the variation in the size of circulating red blood cells (RBCs), reflecting alterations in RBC survival patterns and indicating disturbances in erythropoiesis. Recent studies have shown that elevated RDW is associated with persistent inflammation and that it serves as a prognostic marker in various cancers [8,9,10]. Notably, there is increasing evidence linking cancer-related inflammation with increased RDW levels, which is thought to be driven by the release of cytokines such as interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha [11,12]. These findings suggest that monitoring RDW changes may provide valuable insights into cancer progression and its associated inflammatory responses.
It is reasonable to hypothesize that RDW may aid in predicting the prognosis of patients with cancer. Despite the potential clinical utility of RDW, its application in oncology remains relatively unexplored. The scarcity of publications evaluating the clinical significance of RDW alone on the survival outcome of endometrial cancer in the literature prompted the need for this single-center study. Furthermore, only a limited number of studies have specifically examined the relationships among RDW, cancer progression, and patient survival in the context of endometrial cancer. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical relevance of preoperative red cell distribution width (RDW) in predicting the risk of recurrence and overall prognosis of endometrial carcinoma.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients
Clinical and demographic information was obtained from the medical data of the electronic Severance Hospital platform. We retrospectively reviewed patients with Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I–IV endometrial cancer who underwent open staging surgery or robot-assisted staging at the Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea, between May 2006 and June 2018. Women aged 18 years and older were included in the study. From the electronic medical records, we identified clinical variables such as age, BMI, histology, grade, FIGO stage, harvested and metastatic lymph nodes, red blood cell count, red blood cell distribution width levels, hemoglobin levels, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative transfusion, and the use of adjuvant therapy. All patients underwent procedures such as an extrafascial hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, para-aortic lymph node dissection, or peritoneal cytology examination. A Foley catheter was inserted to empty the bladder. The surgical assistants at the bedside and caudal parts of the patient were usually chief residents or training fellows. Robot-assisted staging surgery was performed using a da Vinci Telerobotic System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Sunnyvale, CA, USA). All three systems (S, Si, and Xi [Intuitive Surgical, Inc.]) were used during the study period.
Blood samples for routine blood tests were collected via standard venipuncture of the peripheral veins of patients with endometrial cancer 24–72 h before surgical staging. White blood cell levels, red blood cell count, red blood cell distribution width levels, and hemoglobin levels were measured with the Sysmex XN (Tokyo, Japan) automatic blood counting system within 0.5 h after blood collection. RDW value was defined as the coefficient of variation (percentage) in red blood cell volume, which measures the degree of variability in the size of red blood cells. In this study, we considered the RDW level to be high when it was over 12.8% (the median value). Blood samples were collected for biochemical analyses.
2.2. Statistical Analysis
Our institutional follow-up strategy was to monitor patients every 3 months for the first 2 years after treatment and every 6 months thereafter. Recurrence was defined as the date of appearance of a disease detected radiologically or histologically during a follow-up examination.
Disease-free survival (DFS) was defined as the time interval between the date of initial diagnosis and disease progression based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 152 1.1). We calculated the overall survival (OS) as the time interval between the date of initial diagnosis and cancer-related death or the end of the study.
All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 25 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). According to preoperative RDW values, patients were divided into two groups: a high-RDW group (>12.8%) and a low-RDW group (≤12.8%). Descriptive statistics were used for the demographic data and are summarized as mean (standard deviation) or frequency (percentage). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to verify standard normal distributional assumptions. Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test were used for parametric and non-parametric variables, respectively. The differences in patient characteristics between the groups were compared using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests with respect to time intervals. DFS and OS were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curve analysis, and the groups were compared using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was employed for both univariate and multivariate analyses. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
3. Results
A total of 431 patients with endometrial cancer were included in this study. The patient characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1.
The preoperative median of RDW in this study was 12.8%, with a range from 11.1% to 27.8%. Patients were divided into two groups based on the median RDW value, with 213 patients having high RDW (>12.8%) and 218 patients having low RDW (≤12.8%). Significant differences were found in age (p = 0.01), BMI (p = 0.01), FIGO stage (p =0.03), number of pelvic metastatic lymph nodes (p = 0.01), and recurrence (p = 0.01) between the two groups. Kruskal–Wallis analysis revealed a significant difference for the proportion of patients with high RDW, as this was higher in stages II, III, and IV than in stage I. The percentages of patients with high RDW values were 14.4%, 32.2%, 37.6%, and 39.4% for stages I (n = 331), stage II (n = 22), stage III (n-56), and stage IV patients (n = 22), respectively (Figure 1).
The median follow-up period after staging surgery was calculated to be 49.5 months (range: 12–124 months). The five-year DFS rates were 87% and 92% in the high-RDW group and low-RDW group, respectively. The five-year OS rates were 89% and 96% in the high RDW-group and low-RDW group, respectively. Patients with high RDW values had significantly shorter disease-free survival and overall survival than those with low RDW values (log-rank p = 0.03, log-rank p = 0.04, respectively) (Figure 2).
In the univariate regression analyses of the complete cohort with DFS as the endpoint, FIGO stage, RDW, grade, histology, and lymph node metastasis were associated with an increased risk of recurrence, whereas in the multivariate analysis, RDW (p = 0.03) and grade 3 (p < 0.00) were significant independent risk factors. With OS as the endpoint, FIGO stage, RDW, histology, grade, and lymph node metastasis were found to be significantly associated with a worse prognosis in the univariate regression analysis. In the multivariate analysis, FIGO stage IV (p < 0.00), RDW (p = 0.04), and grade 3 (p = 0.02) were identified as significant independent risk factors. (Table 2).
4. Discussion
The current study demonstrated that elevated preoperative RDW values were significantly correlated with poor prognosis in patients with endometrial cancer. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the clinical relevance of RDW alone in the prognosis of patients with endometrial cancer. The present study indicated that patients with higher RDW values had worse survival outcomes than those with lower RDW values. Kaplan–Meier cumulative survival analysis for DFS and OS demonstrated that high RDW values indicated significantly shorter DFS and OS in patients with endometrial cancer. These results revealed that RDW may play a pivotal role in predicting the survival of patients with endometrial cancer, particularly those with advanced disease. This is consistent with previous findings in patients with other malignancies, including breast, lung, and gynecologic cancers [13,14,15,16,17].
Takeuchi et al. performed a retrospective study on breast cancer in 299 patients and found a correlation between a higher RDW-to-platelet ratio and lower OS [16]. Li et al. demonstrated a significant correlation between higher RDW and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and worse overall survival [14]. Regarding endometrial cancer, Zhong et al. reported that RDW plus CA-125 was a significant independent prognostic factors for overall survival [17]. These researchers evaluated prognosis by combining RDW and various parameters, including the platelet ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and CA-125. They did not report the clinical relevance of evaluating prognosis based on RDW alone for an accurate prognostic assessment. Furthermore, this results of this study revealed that preoperative RDW values were significantly correlated with the FIGO stage, BMI, lymph node involvement, and recurrence in patients with endometrial cancer. The high-RDW group had a more advanced tumor stage, more extensive lymph node disease, and more frequent recurrence than cases with low RDW values. These findings support the hypothesis that elevated RDW levels may indicate tumor-related systemic inflammation due to more aggressive staging surgery in patients with obesity. Notably, our results also suggest that preoperative RDW values are associated with a high BMI, particularly in patients with advanced-stage disease. Obesity has been extensively linked to poor inflammation and worse clinical comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. The condition leads to the creation of a proinflammatory milieu that is characterized by high levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α in circulation. Additionally, obesity results in a relative deficiency of protective immune cell types, which may contribute to impaired immune dysregulation [18]. Consistent with this hypothesis, we also observed a significant association between high RDW and unfavorable disease-free survival and overall survival. This finding is consistent with the results of other studies on different cancers [8,19,20,21].
RDW is an indicator of the differential diagnosis of anemia. It is calculated by dividing the standard deviation of red blood cell size by the mean corpuscular volume and shows the variability in the size of circulating RBCs [22,23]. The calculation of RDW is an inexpensive test, and its value is routinely reported by automated analyzers used to perform the complete blood count (CBC). In addition to the differential diagnosis of anemia, high RDW levels have also been correlated with cardiovascular and renal diseases [24,25]. Studies have suggested that higher RDW values are significantly correlated with increased mortality in the general population and patients with septicemia and hepatitis [26,27]. The underlying mechanism has not been evaluated; however, high RDW values reflect chronic inflammation and increased levels of circulating cytokines, including IL-6, and hepsidin [12,28]. Anisocytosis, a condition characterized by varying sizes of red blood cells, has historically been neglected in prognostic assessments. However, recent studies have unveiled the promising potential of RDW as a biomarker of poor prognosis in numerous cancer types [20,29]. This may be attributed to the association between high RDW values and chronic inflammation as well as disruptions in erythropoiesis. During tumorigenesis, the local advancement of the tumor typically triggers an inflammatory response and subclinical bleeding. Hence, RDW can serve as an efficient marker of systemic inflammation and is now considered the seventh hallmark of cancer [30]. As subclinical bleeding and chronic inflammation progress and intensify, RDW may be a straightforward and cost-effective addition to traditional evaluation tools, enabling reliable prognostic assessment of patients with endometrial cancer.
The correlation between hematological parameters and cancer prognosis is a complex and multifaceted topic. There are some reports that suggest that other hematological parameters can be correlated with the prognosis of endometrial cancer. The prognostic significance of other parameters, including preoperative leukocytosis, anemia, and thrombosis, has been reported through the use of high-quality research designs such as systematic review and meta-analysis reports in endometrial cancer [31,32].
A strength of the current study was that all surgical staging and adjuvant treatments were performed at a tertiary referral institution by gynecologic oncologists and designated radiation oncologists. Moreover, the findings of this study hold practical implications for practitioners, as they suggest the potential utility of RDW as a prognostic biomarker for endometrial cancer. Despite these strengths, our study had some limitations, such as the retrospective nature of the clinical study and unmeasured variables that can cause confounding factors. Moreover, potential selection bias, especially due to the selection of patients who could undergo several types of adjuvant therapies, may also exist. We also acknowledge the fact that our study was a single-center study, which could affect the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, the single-group design restricts our capacity to establish definitive cause-and-effect relationships, while the lack of five-year follow-up data for all patients further adds to the list of limitations of this research study. We need to compare the sensitivity/specificity of RDW as a prognostic marker in a prospective setting.
5. Conclusions
Our findings suggest that RDW may serve as a useful prognostic biomarker for patients with endometrial cancer, enabling clinicians to identify high-risk individuals and initiate appropriate interventions. Additional studies are needed to validate the findings of the current study.
K.-J.E.: Data curation, Manuscript writing and editing. T.-K.L.: Data analysis, Data interpretation, Manuscript review. E.-J.N.: Data curation, Manuscript editing. S.-W.K.: Conceptualization, Manuscript editing. Y.-T.K.; Conceptualization, Manuscript writing and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This retrospective cohort study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Yonsei University of Korea (Approval No.4-2022-0115). The requirement for written informed consent was waived by the IRB. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Not applicable.
The data pertaining to this study are available in the article.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. RDW values and FIGO stage. In each box, the lower and upper ends show the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. Capped bars demonstrate the minimum and maximum values, respectively. The line inside the box reveals the median RDW value.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. (A) Disease-free survival and (B) overall survival in patients with endometrial cancer. Five-year DFS were 92% and 87% in the low- and high-RDW groups, respectively. Five-year OS percentages were 96% and 89% in the low- and high-RDW groups, respectively.
Patient characteristics of the study population.
| Characteristics | Total Patients | RDW | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low |
High |
p | ||
| Age, mean (SD) | 53.8 (9.3) | 55.9 (8.1) | 51.7 (10.5) | 0.01 |
| BMI, kg/m² (SD) | 24.8 (5.1) | 24.6 (3.8) | 25.0 (6.3) | 0.00 |
| Preoperative Hb (SD) | 12.1 (1.6) | 12.6 (1.5) | 11.6 (1.8) | 0.11 |
| FIGO stage n, (%) | 0.03 | |||
| I | 331 | 177 (81.2) | 154 (72.3) | |
| II | 22 | 13 (6.0) | 9 (4.2) | |
| III | 56 | 21 (9.6) | 35 (16.4) | |
| IV | 22 | 7 (3.2) | 15 (7.0) | |
| Cell type, n (%) | 0.61 | |||
| Endometrioid | 317 | 158 (72.5) | 159 (74.6) | |
| Other | 114 | 60 (27.5) | 54 (25.4) | |
| Grade, n (%) | 0.34 | |||
| 1 | 186 | 91 (41.7) | 95 (44.6) | |
| 2 | 134 | 75 (34.4) | 59 (27.7) | |
| 3 | 111 | 52 (23.9) | 59 (27.7) | |
| Metastatic LN, n (%) | ||||
| Pelvic LN | 55 | 19 (8.7) | 36 (16.9) | 0.01 |
| Paraaortic LN | 32 | 16 (7.3) | 16 (6.1) | 0.61 |
| EBL, mL (SD) | 162.6 (217.9) | 320.4 (612.9) | 0.00 | |
| Adjuvant therapy | ||||
| Radiation | 84 | 49 (22.5) | 35 (16.4) | 0.18 |
| Chemotherapy | 89 | 37 (17.0) | 52 (24.4) | |
| Both | 29 | 15 (6.9) | 14 (6.6) | |
| None | 229 | 117 (53.7) | 112 (52.6) | |
| Recurrence, n (%) | 0.01 | |||
| No | 374 | 198 (90.8) | 176 (82.6) | |
| Yes | 57 | 20 (9.2) | 37 (17.4) | |
| Vital status, n (%) | 0.05 | |||
| Alive | 394 | 205 (94.0) | 189 (88.7) | |
| Dead | 37 | 13 (6.0) | 24 (11.3) | |
RDW, red blood cell distribution width; SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; LN, lymph node; EBL, estimated blood loss.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of the complete cohort (n = 431) with disease-free survival and overall survival as the end points.
| DFS | OS | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
| HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | |
| Age | ||||||||
| ≤49 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| ≥50 | 1.24 (0.68–2.27) | 0.48 | 2.62 (1.02–6.72) | 0.06 | ||||
| FIGO stage | ||||||||
| I | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| II | 3.84 (1.57–9.36) | 0.03 | 3.19 (1.26–8.05) | 0.01 | 2.96 (0.86–10.16) | 0.09 | 2.17 (0.62–7.61) | 0.23 |
| III | 3.56 (1.82–6.98) | 0.00 | 1.40 (0.50–3.95) | 0.53 | 3.09 (1.26–7.55) | 0.01 | 1.05 (0.25–4.43) | 0.95 |
| IV | 18.79 (9.52–37.09) | 0.00 | 7.73 (2.78–21.50) | 0.00 | 20.01 (9.10–43.99) | 0.00 | 7.99 (2.07–30.90) | 0.00 |
| RDW | ||||||||
| Low | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||
| High | 1.80 (0.84–3.10) | 0.03 | 1.51 (0.84–2.72) | 0.04 | 1.73 (0.88–3.41) | 0.04 | 1.63 (0.78–2.41) | 0.04 |
| Histology | ||||||||
| Endometrioid | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Other | 3.02 (1.78–5.13) | 0.00 | 1.22 (0.65–2.28) | 0.54 | 5.12 (2.63–9.96) | 0.00 | 2.07 (0.94–4.57) | 0.07 |
| Grade | ||||||||
| 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| 2 | 1.99 (0.90–4.44) | 0.09 | 1.55 (0.67–3.58) | 0.30 | 3.16 (0.99–10.09) | 0.05 | 2.52 (0.77–8.25) | 0.13 |
| 3 | 6.56 (3.22–13.37) | 0.00 | 3.42 (1.49–7.83) | 0.00 | 11.51 (3.96–33.41) | 0.00 | 4.40 (1.34–14.46) | 0.02 |
| Pelvic LN metastasis | ||||||||
| Negative | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Positive | 5.32 (3.07–9.22) | 0.00 | 1.68 (0.65–4.35) | 0.29 | 6.40 (3.27–12.52) | 0.00 | 2.26 (0.63–8.17) | 0.21 |
| Paraaortic LN metastasis | ||||||||
| Negative | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Positive | 2.99 (1.42–6.33) | 0.00 | 1.01 (0.42–2.46) | 0.98 | 2.64 (1.03–6.80) | 0.04 | 0.51 (0.18–1.45) | 0.20 |
DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; RDW, red blood cell distribution width; LN, lymph node.
References
1. Bergstrom, J.; Aloisi, A.; Armbruster, S.; Yen, T.-T.; Casarin, J.; Leitao, M.M., Jr.; Tanner, E.J.; Matsuno, R.; Machado, K.K.; Dowdy, S.C. Minimally invasive hysterectomy surgery rates for endometrial cancer performed at national comprehensive cancer network (nccn) centers. Gynecol. Oncol.; 2018; 148, pp. 480-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.01.002]
2. Kim, Y.N.; Kim, Y.T. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in high-risk endometrial cancer: Performance, outcomes, and future avenues. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci.; 2022; 65, pp. 395-405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5468/ogs.22146]
3. Bossi, P.; Delrio, P.; Mascheroni, A.; Zanetti, M. The spectrum of malnutrition/cachexia/sarcopenia in oncology according to different cancer types and settings: A narrative review. Nutrients; 2021; 13, 1980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13061980] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34207529]
4. Eoh, K.J.; Nam, E.J.; Kim, S.W.; Shin, M.; Kim, S.J.; Kim, J.A.; Kim, Y.T. Nationwide comparison of surgical and oncologic outcomes in endometrial cancer patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery: A population-based cohort study. Cancer Res. Treat.; 2021; 53, pp. 549-557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4143/crt.2020.802]
5. Han, R.; Tian, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Guan, G.; Wang, X.; Sun, X.; Yu, Y.; Jing, X. Prognostic significance of the systemic immune inflammation index in patients with metastatic and unresectable pancreatic cancer. Front. Surg.; 2022; 9, 915599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.915599] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36111233]
6. Liu, X.C.; Jiang, Y.P.; Sun, X.G.; Zhao, J.J.; Zhang, L.Y.; Jing, X. Prognostic significance of the systemic immune-inflammation index in patients with cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis. Front. Oncol.; 2022; 12, 938549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.938549]
7. Zeng, Z.; Xu, S.; Wang, D.; Qin, G. Prognostic significance of systemic immune-inflammation index in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Syst. Rev.; 2022; 11, 247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02123-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36403072]
8. Ge, W.; Xie, J.; Chang, L. Elevated red blood cell distribution width predicts poor prognosis in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Manag. Res.; 2018; 10, pp. 3611-3618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S176200]
9. Kemal, Y.; Demirag, G.; Baş, B.; Önem, S.; Teker, F.; Yücel, İ. The value of red blood cell distribution width in endometrial cancer. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med.; 2015; 53, pp. 823-827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0699]
10. Miszczyk, M.; Jabłońska, I.; Magrowski, Ł.; Masri, O.; Rajwa, P. The association between rdw and survival of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. Simple, cheap and convenient?. Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother.; 2020; 25, pp. 494-499. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2020.03.026]
11. De Gonzalo-Calvo, D.; de Luxán-Delgado, B.; Rodríguez-González, S.; García-Macia, M.; Suárez, F.M.; Solano, J.J.; Rodríguez-Colunga, M.J.; Coto-Montes, A. Interleukin 6, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor i and red blood cell distribution width as biological markers of functional dependence in an elderly population: A translational approach. Cytokine; 2012; 58, pp. 193-198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cyto.2012.01.005]
12. Rhodes, C.J.; Howard, L.S.; Busbridge, M.; Ashby, D.; Kondili, E.; Gibbs, J.S.; Wharton, J.; Wilkins, M.R. Iron deficiency and raised hepcidin in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension: Clinical prevalence, outcomes, and mechanistic insights. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.; 2011; 58, pp. 300-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.02.057] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21737024]
13. Chen, J.L.; Wu, J.N.; Lv, X.D.; Yang, Q.C.; Chen, J.R.; Zhang, D.M. The value of red blood cell distribution width, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and hemoglobin-to-red blood cell distribution width ratio in the progression of non-small cell lung cancer. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15, e0237947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237947] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32833961]
14. Li, Z.; Hong, N.; Robertson, M.; Wang, C.; Jiang, G. Preoperative red cell distribution width and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predict survival in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Sci. Rep.; 2017; 7, 43001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep43001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28223716]
15. Song, B.; Shi, P.; Xiao, J.; Song, Y.; Zeng, M.; Cao, Y.; Zhu, X. Utility of red cell distribution width as a diagnostic and prognostic marker in non-small cell lung cancer. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 15717. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72585-4]
16. Takeuchi, H.; Abe, M.; Takumi, Y.; Hashimoto, T.; Miyawaki, M.; Okamoto, T.; Sugio, K. Elevated red cell distribution width to platelet count ratio predicts poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer. Sci. Rep.; 2019; 9, 3033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40024-8]
17. Zhong, W.; Zhou, C.; Chen, L.; Wang, Z.; Lin, H.; Wu, K.; Zhang, S. The coefficient of variation of red blood cell distribution width combined with cancer antigen 125 predicts postoperative overall survival in endometrial cancer. Int. J. Gen. Med.; 2021; 14, pp. 5903-5910. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S323136]
18. Wright, C.; Simone, N.L. Obesity and tumor growth: Inflammation, immunity, and the role of a ketogenic diet. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care; 2016; 19, pp. 294-299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0000000000000286]
19. Lv, X.; Han, S.; Xu, B.; Deng, Y.; Feng, Y. The value of complete blood count for the prognosis analysis of preoperative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer; 2021; 21, 1072. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08789-2]
20. Pedrazzani, C.; Tripepi, M.; Turri, G.; Fernandes, E.; Scotton, G.; Conci, S.; Campagnaro, T.; Ruzzenente, A.; Guglielmi, A. Prognostic value of red cell distribution width (rdw) in colorectal cancer. Results from a single-center cohort on 591 patients. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 1072. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-57721-4]
21. Yüksel, C.; Erşen, O.; Culcu, S.; Bakırarar, B.; Unal, A.E.; Demirci, S. Prognostic role of red distribution width (rdw) value in gastric cancer. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak.; 2021; 31, pp. 21-26.
22. Ferrucci, L.; Guralnik, J.M.; Woodman, R.C.; Bandinelli, S.; Lauretani, F.; Corsi, A.M.; Chaves, P.H.; Ershler, W.B.; Longo, D.L. Proinflammatory state and circulating erythropoietin in persons with and without anemia. Am. J. Med.; 2005; 118, 1288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.06.039]
23. Patel, K.V.; Ferrucci, L.; Ershler, W.B.; Longo, D.L.; Guralnik, J.M. Red blood cell distribution width and the risk of death in middle-aged and older adults. Arch. Intern. Med.; 2009; 169, pp. 515-523. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.11] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19273783]
24. Allen, L.A.; Felker, G.M.; Mehra, M.R.; Chiong, J.R.; Dunlap, S.H.; Ghali, J.K.; Lenihan, D.J.; Oren, R.M.; Wagoner, L.E.; Schwartz, T.A. et al. Validation and potential mechanisms of red cell distribution width as a prognostic marker in heart failure. J. Card. Fail.; 2010; 16, pp. 230-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2009.11.003]
25. Lippi, G.; Turcato, G.; Cervellin, G.; Sanchis-Gomar, F. Red blood cell distribution width in heart failure: A narrative review. World J. Cardiol.; 2018; 10, pp. 6-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v10.i2.6]
26. Jo, Y.H.; Kim, K.; Lee, J.H.; Kang, C.; Kim, T.; Park, H.M.; Kang, K.W.; Kim, J.; Rhee, J.E. Red cell distribution width is a prognostic factor in severe sepsis and septic shock. Am. J. Emerg. Med.; 2013; 31, pp. 545-548. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.10.017] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23380094]
27. Lou, Y.; Wang, M.; Mao, W. Clinical usefulness of measuring red blood cell distribution width in patients with hepatitis b. PLoS ONE; 2012; 7, e37644. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037644] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22649548]
28. Chen, L.; Kong, X.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Fang, Y.; Wang, J. Pre-treatment systemic immune-inflammation index is a useful prognostic indicator in patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J. Cell. Mol. Med.; 2020; 24, pp. 2993-3021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.14934] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31989747]
29. Yüce, K.; Dursun, P.; Gültekin, M. Posthysterectomy intestinal prolapse after coitus and vaginal repair. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet.; 2005; 272, pp. 80-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-004-0709-8]
30. Colotta, F.; Allavena, P.; Sica, A.; Garlanda, C.; Mantovani, A. Cancer-related inflammation, the seventh hallmark of cancer: Links to genetic instability. Carcinogenesis; 2009; 30, pp. 1073-1081. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgp127]
31. Abu-Zaid, A.; Alomar, O.; Abuzaid, M.; Baradwan, S.; Salem, H.; Al-Badawi, I.A. Preoperative anemia predicts poor prognosis in patients with endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.; 2021; 258, pp. 382-390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.01.038] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33529973]
32. Abu-Zaid, A.; Alomar, O.; Baradwan, S.; Abuzaid, M.; Alshahrani, M.S.; Allam, H.S.; Alqarni, S.M.S.; Nazer, A.; Salem, H.; Al-Badawi, I.A. Preoperative leukocytosis correlates with unfavorable pathological and survival outcomes in endometrial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.; 2021; 264, pp. 88-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.07.022] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34298450]
© 2023 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
; Tae-Kyung, Lee 2 ; Eun-Ji Nam 3 ; Sang-Wun, Kim 3
; Young-Tae, Kim 3
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yongin Severance Hospital, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Yongin 16995, Republic of Korea;
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon 22332, Republic of Korea;
3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women’s Medical Life Science, Severance Hospital, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Seoul 06273, Republic of Korea;