Incorporating Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-lymphocyte Ratio in Place of Neutrophil Count and Platelet Count Improves Prognostic Accuracy of the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Model

Pawel Chrom; Rafal Stec; Lubomir Bodnar; Cezary Szczylik

doi:10.4143/crt.2017.033

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 50(1); 2018 > Article

Original Article Incorporating Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-lymphocyte Ratio in Place of Neutrophil Count and Platelet Count Improves Prognostic Accuracy of the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Model: Pawel Chrom, MD, Rafal Stec, MD, PhD, Lubomir Bodnar, MD, PhD, Cezary Szczylik, MD, PhD; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2018;50(1):103-110.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.033
Published online: March 3, 2017

Department of Oncology, Military Institute of Medicine, Warsaw, Poland

Correspondence: Pawel Chrom, MD Department of Oncology, Military Institute of Medicine, P.O. Box 04141, Szaserow 128 St., Warsaw, Poland
Tel: 48-600057413 Fax: 48-226103098 E-mail: pawel.chrom@gmail.com

• Received: January 19, 2017 • Accepted: February 28, 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

11,949 Views
210 Download
29 Web of Science
31 Crossref
29 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
The study investigated whether a replacement of neutrophil count and platelet count by neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) within the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model would improve its prognostic accuracy.
Materials and Methods
This retrospective analysis included consecutive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The IMDC and modified-IMDC models were compared using: concordance index (CI), bias-corrected concordance index (BCCI), calibration plots, the Grønnesby and Borgan test, Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), generalized R², Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI), and continuous Net Reclassification Index (cNRI) for individual risk factors and the three risk groups.
Results
Three hundred and twenty-one patients were eligible for analyses. The modified-IMDC model with NLR value of 3.6 and PLR value of 157 was selected for comparison with the IMDC model. Both models were well calibrated. All other measures favoured the modified-IMDC model over the IMDC model (CI, 0.706 vs. 0.677; BCCI, 0.699 vs. 0.671; BIC, 2,176.2 vs. 2,190.7; generalized R², 0.238 vs. 0.202; IDI, 0.044; cNRI, 0.279 for individual risk factors; and CI, 0.669 vs. 0.641; BCCI, 0.669 vs. 0.641; BIC, 2,183.2 vs. 2,198.1; generalized R², 0.163 vs. 0.123; IDI, 0.045; cNRI, 0.165 for the three risk groups).
Conclusion
Incorporation of NLR and PLR in place of neutrophil count and platelet count improved prognostic accuracy of the IMDC model. These findings require external validation before introducing into clinical practice.
Key words: International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model, Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, Overall survival, Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, Prognosis, Tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Introduction

Recent years has brought a significant improvement in treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) increased the median overall survival (OS) more than two-fold when compared to cytokine-based therapies, currently approaching 2 years for first-line setting [1,2]. However, no factors able to predict therapy-associated response were found for any compound used in this indication. Thus, patient evaluation and therapeutic decisions still rely on the survival prognosis which is stratified using baseline clinical features. The most common tool for this purpose developed in the era of molecular targeted therapies is the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model, which consists of six factors associated with poor outcome: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) less than 80%, time from diagnosis to treatment initiation less than 1 year, haemoglobin less than the lower limit of normal (LLN), serum corrected calcium greater than the upper limit of normal (ULN), neutrophil count greater than the ULN and platelet count greater than the ULN. Patients are stratified into favourable, intermediate and poor risk groups according to the number of the adverse factors (0, 1-2, and 3-6, respectively) [3]. The IMDC model was successfully validated using external datasets and nowadays is applicable for first-, second- and third-line treatment [4-6]. Since the introduction of the IMDC model in 2009, numerous studies revealed potential prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in metastatic RCC [7-14]. NLR and PLR are easy accessible and cost-effective biomarkers of inflammation with values depending on neutrophil count and platelet count, respectively, albeit were not analyzed during the computation of the IMDC model. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the replacement of neutrophil count and platelet count by NLR and PLR within the IMDC model would improve its prognostic ability for OS in patients treated with first-line TKIs.

Materials and Methods

1. Patients

The present retrospective analysis included consecutive patients with metastatic RCC who had begun treatment with a first-line TKI from November 2009 to March 2016, in the Department of Oncology, Military Institute of Medicine in Warsaw, Poland. The inclusion criteria contained: (1) diagnosis of metastatic RCC of any histologic subtype, (2) previous nephrectomy or nephron-sparing surgery, (3) use of standard TKI schedules, (4) no other malignancies, (5) no adjuvant or investigational therapy at any time after diagnosis. Additionally patients who were treated with immunotherapy prior to the initiation of a TKI (i.e., TKI therapy was second-line systemic treatment) were included.

Patients’ information was gathered from their individual medical records. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the participating centre.

2. Outcome and statistical methods

The assessed outcome was OS which was defined as the time from the initiation of first-line TKI treatment to death of any cause. The Kaplan-Meier estimation was used to plot survival curves and to calculate medians with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS. Log-rank test was used to compare survival curves of the three risk groups. Patients’ data was last updated on October 15, 2016. Patients, who were either alive on that date or lost to follow-up were censored. The Schemper and Smith method was used to calculate the median follow-up time [15]. A formula for serum corrected calcium calculation was as follows: total serum calcium +0.8×(4–serum albumin). NLR and PLR were calculated by dividing the absolute neutrophil count and the absolute platelet count, respectively, by the absolute lymphocyte count. Binary variables were converted from continuous or ordinal variables using following rules: (1) KPS: > 70% versus ≤ 70%; (2) time since diagnosis to treatment initiation: < 12 months versus ≥ 12 months; (3) serum corrected calcium, neutrophil count, and platelet count: ≤ ULNs versus > ULNs; (4) haemoglobin: ≥ LLN versus < LLN; and (5) NLR and PLR: < cutpoint candidate versus ≥ cutpoint candidate. Cutpoint candidates for NLR and PLR were obtained in a two-step procedure. In the first step, cutpoints were taken from the literature (2.5, 3.0, 3.6, and 4.0 for NLR; 150 and 210 for PLR) [9,10,12-14] and from the Contal and O’Quigley method. In this method, a cutpoint with the highest absolute result of log-rank statistic gives the maximum difference between the subjects in the two groups defined by this cutpoint [16]. In the second step, preliminary models that included the IMDC criteria with replacement of neutrophil count and platelet count by all possible combinations of NLR and PLR cutpoint candidates were constructed. All the models underwent multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and thereafter calculation of bias-corrected concordance index with generation of 1,000 bootstrap samples using random sampling with replacement. The model with the highest value of bias-corrected concordance index, then called the modified-IMDC model, was selected for comparison with the original IMDC model. The models’ prognostic accuracy was assessed separately for individual risk factors and the three risk groups using: (1) concordance index, (2) bias-corrected concordance index, (3) calibration plots, (4) the Gronnesby and Borgan test at 24 months after TKI initiation, (5) Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), (6) generalized R², (7) Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI), and (8) continuous Net Reclassification Index (cNRI).

Concordance index is a traditional measure of discrimination, which is the ability of the model to separate patients with different outcomes. Bias-corrected concordance index is a result of reducing the bias caused by model overfitting from the concordance index. Both indices result with values ranging from 0.5 representing no predictive ability to 1 representing perfect predictive ability to separate patients [17]. Calibration refers to the amount of agreement between predicted and observed outcomes. Calibration plot consists of the x-axis for predictions and the y-axis for the outcome with perfect predictions located on a 45 degree line. The Grønnesby and Borgan test evaluates calibration in survival analysis setting [18]. A model is miscalibrated if the results of the test are statistically significant across groups constructed by splitting patients using deciles of their risk scores. BIC and generalized R² assess the distances between observed and predicted outcomes and both are related to the concept of global ‘goodness-of-fit.’ A model with lower BIC value and generalised R² value closer to 1 within the range from 0 to 1 represents better overall prognostic ability. IDI and Net Reclassification Index (NRI) quantify the degree of correct reclassification offered by new set of prognostic criteria, separately for group with the outcome (events) and without the outcome (non-events) [19]. IDI is considered as an improvement in average sensitivity without sacrificing average specificity, and is equal to A_event –A_non-event, where,

A_event=Average probability of having event in events

A_non-event=Average probability of having event in non-events

Using NRI, every change in pre-specified risk categories based on predicted probabilities for individuals after implementation of the new model is counted as upward movement (a change into higher-risk category, e.g., from medium to high) or downward movement (a change in the opposite direction, e.g., from medium to low). Then NRI is equal to P_event–P_non-event, where,

P_event=Probability of moving upward in events–Probability of moving downward in events

P_non-event=Probability of moving upward in non-events–Probability of moving downward in non-events

cNRI does not require pre-specified risk categories but considers any increase in individual’s predicted probability as upward movement (e.g., from 0.15 to 0.16) and any decrease as downward movement (e.g., from 0.16 to 0.15) [20]. Calculation of modified IDI and cNRI suitable for survival data were done at 24 months after first-line TKI initiation [21,22]. 95% CIs for results of IDI and cNRI were obtained using resampling-perturbation procedure with 1,000 bootstrap samples [22]. A larger positive value of IDI and cNRI means a better reclassification after switching from the old model to the new model.

All tests were two-sided with p-values less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Patients with missing data for models’ covariates were excluded from analyses. Statistical computations were done using Stata ver. 14.2 (StataCorp., College Station, TX) and R ver. 3.2.3 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

1. Outcomes

Three hundred and twenty-six patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Five cases had missing values for serum corrected calcium and were excluded from further analyses. Detailed characteristics of the remaining 321 patients are listed in Table 1. At the conclusion of data collection, 219 patients (68.2%) had died. Median OS was 23.2 months (95% CI, 19.0 to 27.4) and median follow-up time was 55.5 months (95% CI, 50.4 to 60.6). One hundred and forty-three patients (44.5%) were treated with second-line targeted therapy: 118 (36.8%) received everolimus and 25 (7.7%) received axitinib.

2. The IMDC model

Table 2 summarises the results of multivariable factor analysis of the IMDC criteria. KPS, time since diagnosis to treatment initiation, hemoglobin, serum corrected calcium, and platelet count were independently associated with OS. Neutrophil count did not independently influence on OS. After categorization according to number of predefined factors, 119 patients (37.1%) were in the favourable risk group with median OS of 40.2 months (95% CI, 34.5 to 45.9) and 2-year survival rate of 69.6% (95% CI, 61.0 to 78.2), 167 patients (52.0%) were in the intermediate risk group with median OS of 19.6 months (95% CI, 15.8 to 23.4) and 2-year survival rate of 43.2% (95% CI, 35.4 to 51.0), 35 patients (10.9%) were in the poor risk group with median OS of 6.5 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 9.5) and 2-year survival of 12.3% (95% CI, 1.1 to 23.5). OS curves differed significantly between the IMDC risk groups (Fig. 1).

3. The modified-IMDC model

The cutpoints derived by the Contal and O’Quigley method were 2.5 for NLR and 157 for PLR. Thus, 12 models including all possible combinations of NLR and PLR candidates as replacements of neutrophil and platelet counts were constructed (S1 Table). Out of these, a model with NLR and PLR cutpoints of 3.6 and 157, respectively, had the highest bias-corrected concordance index and was named the modified-IMDC model. In multivariable analysis all its covariates were significantly influencing OS (Table 2). After segregation based on modified-IMDC criteria using the same rule for number of predefined factors, 68 patients (21.2%) were in the favourable risk group with median OS of 46.1 months (95% CI, 35.2 to 57.0) and 2-year survival rate of 83.9% (95% CI, 74.7 to 93.1), 161 patients (50.2%) were in the intermediate risk group with median OS of 25.3 months (95% CI, 19.7 to 30.9) and 2-year survival rate of 51.5% (95% CI, 43.5 to 59.5), 92 patients (28.7%) were in the poor risk group with median OS of 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.7 to 12.9) and 2-year survival of 20.5% (95% CI, 11.7 to 29.3). OS curves differed significantly between the modified-IMDC risk groups (Fig. 2).

4. Comparison of prognostic accuracy of the IMDC and modified-IMDC models

Calibration plots were similar across the models and revealed their well calibration using individual risk factors and only slightly worse performance of the IMDC using the three risk groups (S2-S5 Figs.). Non-significant results of the Grønnesby and Borgan tests supported agreement between observed and estimated expected numbers of events in both models (S6 Table). All other measures showed better prognostic performance of the modified-IMDC model over the IMDC model, including statistically significant results of IDI and cNRI (using individual risk factors) and cNRI (using the three risk groups) (Table 3, S7 and S8 Figs.).

Discussion

The IMDC model is a well-established tool for survival prediction in patients treated with targeted therapies for metastatic RCC. However, during its construction, several baseline factors potentially influencing the prognosis, including inflammatory markers as C-reactive protein [23], NLR [7-13], or PLR [12,14], were omitted. Besides, high neutrophils and platelets present in the IMDC model were not independently associated with poor survival in other studies [24,25], and high lymphocyte count was found to decrease risk death of patients treated with interleukin 2 [26]. Thus, the combination of these may provide more prognostic information than either component alone. This is coherent with immunogenic nature of RCC, whose growth is stimulated by neutrophil secretions (e.g., vascular endothelial growth factor, hypoxia-inducible factor) and lymphocyte-mediated response inhibition (e.g., via T-cell apoptosis) [27,28]. Therefore, if replacement of neutrophil and platelet counts by NLR and PLR within the IMDC model would improve its prognostic accuracy, it would be a simple and beneficial change in this prognostic tool, especially when no factors predicting a response to TKI therapy exist.

In this study population, prognostic performance of the modified-IMDC model that included NLR and PLR in place of neutrophil count and platelet count was unanimously improved when compared to the original IMDC model. In multivariable Cox regression analysis all six factors of the modified-IMDC model were significantly influencing OS, whereas neutrophil count was non-significant factor in the IMDC model. Additionally, the modified-IMDC model distributed patients more equally within favourable and poor risk groups (21.2% vs. 37.1% and 28.7% vs. 10.9%, respectively). The decrease in proportion of patients in the favourable risk group was similar to the increase in proportion of patients in the poor risk group and it was accompanied by the increase in median OS in all three risk groups. This may be explained by the Will Rogers phenomenon: patients with ‘the worst’ outcome within the favourable risk group moved into the intermediate risk group and similar number of patients with ‘the worst’ outcome within the intermediate risk group moved into the poor risk group [29]. Global ‘goodness of fit,’ discrimination and recalibration measures favoured the modified-IMDC model over the IMDC model not only in case of using individual risk factors, but also when using the three risk groups, which is a common and comprehensible approach to stratify patients in clinical practice.

The most important weakness of the study might be determining the cutpoints for NLR and PLR which are continuous variables without defined limits of normal. Herein values of 3.6 for NLR and 157 for PLR have been chosen as cutpoints because this combination, together with the remaining IMDC criteria, had shown the highest level of patients’ discrimination. Nevertheless, different combination of NLR and PLR cutpoints may present better prognostic performance within other populations. Several studies revealed that NLR greater than 2.5 [9], 3.0 [10], 3.04 [11], 4.0 [13] and PLR greater than 150 [12], 210 [14] are associated with poor survival. The only study in which both NLR and PLR were significant prognostic factors in multivariable analysis contained cutpoints of 3.6 and 150 for NLR and PLR, respectively [12]. Interestingly, this set of cutpoints is almost identical to the presented in the current research. Moreover, the remaining 11 models with other sets of cutpoints were still better than the IMDC model in terms of bias-corrected concordance index, BIC and generalized R² when using individual risk factors (S1 Table). This supports the hypothesis that improvement in prognostic accuracy may be observed regardless of NLR and PLR cutpoints chosen from the literature.

Other limitations of this study include its retrospective design, single-institution experience and no collection of information about concomitant drugs influencing on blood counts (e.g., steroids). Despite these disadvantages, patients’ outcomes are similar to those reported recently; likewise the performance of the IMDC model still looks satisfactory with wide separation of the risk groups’ survival curves.

To our knowledge, this is the first study that assessed the possibility of improvement in the prognostic accuracy of the IMDC model since its development about eight years ago. This complex analysis demonstrated that replacement of neutrophil and platelet counts by NLR and PLR provided more accurate prognostic information within population of patients with metastatic RCC treated with first-line TKIs. Despite promising results, further studies on external datasets are needed to confirm these findings and to establish cutpoints for NLR and PLR.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (http://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2017-033-suppl1.pdf

crt-2017-033-suppl2.pdf

crt-2017-033-suppl3.pdf

crt-2017-033-suppl4.pdf

crt-2017-033-suppl5.pdf

crt-2017-033-suppl6.pdf

crt-2017-033-suppl7.pdf

crt-2017-033-suppl8.pdf

NOTES

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Fig. 1.

Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) stratified by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups.

Fig. 2.

Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) stratified by the modified International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (MIMDC) risk groups.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics at the start of first-line TKI therapy

Variable	No. (%) (n=321)
Age, median (range, yr)	62 (22-85)
Time from diagnosis to TKI therapy initiation, median (range, mo)	13.5 (0-270)
NLR, median (range)	2.9 (0.5-40.6)
PLR, median (range)	163 (23-1,158)
Male sex	215 (67.0)
KPS (%)
100	125 (38.9)
80-90	187 (58.3)
≤ 70	9 (2.8)
Histology
Clear cell	302 (94.1)
Other	19 (5.9)
Sarcomatoid features	18 (5.6)
Fuhrman grade^a)
1	14 (4.9)
2	157 (54.7)
3	82 (28.6)
4	34 (11.8)
TNM T stage^b)
T1	56 (20.3)
T2	79 (28.6)
T3	131 (47.5)
T4	10 (3.6)
Prior immunotherapy	35 (10.9)
First-line TKI treatment
Sunitinib	240 (74.8)
Pazopanib	57 (17.8)
Sorafenib	24 (7.4)
No. of metastatic sites
1	69 (21.5)
2	93 (29.0)
> 2	159 (49.5)
Lung metastases	231 (72.0)
Lymph node metastases	153 (47.7)
Liver metastases	68 (21.2)
Bone metastases	96 (29.9)
Brain metastases	16 (5.0)
Haemoglobin < LLN	62 (19.3)
Serum corrected calcium > ULN	35 (10.9)
Neutrophils > ULN	26 (8.1)
Platelets > ULN	44 (13.7)

TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor; NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; LLN, lower limit of normal; ULN, upper limit of normal.

^a) Number of evaluated patients was 287,

^b) Number of evaluated patients was 276.

Table 2.

Multivariable Cox regression analyses of the IMDC and modified-IMDC models

Variable	IMDC			Modified-IMDC
Variable	p-value	Hazard ratio	95% CI	p-value	Hazard ratio	95% CI
KPS ≤ 70	< 0.001	5.52	2.69-11.33	< 0.001	6.43	3.13-13.20
Time^a) < 1 yr	0.007	1.46	1.11-1.91	0.005	1.47	1.13-1.93
Haemoglobin < LLN	< 0.001	2.28	1.64-3.18	< 0.001	1.91	1.35-2.70
Corrected calcium > ULN	0.034	1.54	1.03-2.28	0.034	1.54	1.03-2.31
Neutrophil count > ULN	0.121	1.47	0.90-2.38	-	-	-
Platelet count > ULN	0.021	1.57	1.07-2.29	-	-	-
NLR ≥ 3.6	-	-	-	0.038	1.39	1.02-1.91
PLR ≥ 157	-	-	-	0.004	1.64	1.18-2.28

IMDC, International Metastatic Renal Cell Database Consortium; CI, confidence interval; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; LLN, lower limit of normal; ULN, upper limit of normal; NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio.

^a) Time from diagnosis to treatment initiation.

Table 3.

Measures of fit of the IMDC and modified-IMDC models

Measure	Individual risk factor		Three risk group
Measure	IMDC	Modified-IMDC	IMDC	Modified-IMDC
Concordance index (95% CI)	0.677 (0.638 to 0.716)	0.706 (0.665 to 0.747)	0.641 (0.604 to 0.678)	0.669 (0.630 to 0.708)
Bias-corrected concordance index	0.671	0.699	0.641	0.669
BIC	2,190.7	2,176.2	2,198.1	2,183.2
Generalized R²	0.202	0.238	0.123	0.163
IDI
A_event	0.022	-	0.023	-
A_non-event	–0.022	-	–0.022	-
Point estimate (95% CI)	0.044 (0.001 to 0.093)	-	0.045 (–0.006 to 0.099)	-
p-value	0.046	-	0.084	-
cNRI
P_event	0.592	-	0.419	-
P_non-event	0.313	-	0.254	-
Point estimate (95% CI)	0.279 (0.091 to 0.377)	-	0.165 (0.062 to 0.375)	-
p-value	0.004	-	0.004	-

IMDC, International Metastatic Renal Cell Database Consortium; CI, confidence interval; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion; IDI, Integrated Discrimination Improvement; cNRI, continuous Net Reclassification Index.

REFERENCES

1. Motzer RJ, Mazumdar M, Bacik J, Berg W, Amsterdam A, Ferrara J. Survival and prognostic stratification of 670 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2530–40. Article PubMed
2. Ruiz-Morales JM, Swierkowski M, Wells JC, Fraccon AP, Pasini F, Donskov F, et al. First-line sunitinib versus pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. Eur J Cancer. 2016;65:102–8. Article PubMed
3. Heng DY, Xie W, Regan MM, Warren MA, Golshayan AR, Sahi C, et al. Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agents: results from a large, multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5794–9. Article PubMed
4. Heng DY, Xie W, Regan MM, Harshman LC, Bjarnason GA, Vaishampayan UN, et al. External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:141–8. Article PubMed PMC
5. Ko JJ, Xie W, Kroeger N, Lee JL, Rini BI, Knox JJ, et al. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model as a prognostic tool in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma previously treated with first-line targeted therapy: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:293–300. Article PubMed
6. Wells JC, Stukalin I, Norton C, Srinivas S, Lee JL, Donskov F, et al. Third-line targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. Eur Urol. 2017;71:204–9. Article PubMed
7. Templeton AJ, Knox JJ, Lin X, Simantov R, Xie W, Lawrence N, et al. Change in neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in response to targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma as a prognosticator and biomarker of efficacy. Eur Urol. 2016;70:358–64. Article PubMed
8. Hu K, Lou L, Ye J, Zhang S. Prognostic role of the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006404Article PubMed PMC
9. Templeton AJ, Heng DY, Choueiri TK, McDermott DF, Fay AP, Srinivas S, et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and its effect on the prognostic value of the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model for patients treated with targeted therapy (TT). J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(4 Suppl):Abstr 470.Article
10. Keizman D, Ish-Shalom M, Huang P, Eisenberger MA, Pili R, Hammers H, et al. The association of pre-treatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio with response rate, progression free survival and overall survival of patients treated with sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:202–8. Article PubMed PMC
11. Cetin B, Berk V, Kaplan MA, Afsar B, Tufan G, Ozkan M, et al. Is the pretreatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio an important prognostic parameter in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2013;11:141–8. Article PubMed
12. Park TJ, Cho YH, Chung HS, Hwang EC, Jung SH, Hwang JE, et al. Prognostic significance of platelet-lymphocyte ratio in patients receiving first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors for metastatic renal cell cancer. Springerplus. 2016;5:1889.Article PubMed PMC PDF
13. Chrom P, Stec R, Semeniuk-Wojtas A, Bodnar L, Spencer NJ, Szczylik C. Fuhrman grade and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio influence on survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016;14:457–64. Article PubMed
14. Gunduz S, Mutlu H, Tural D, Yildiz O, Uysal M, Coskun HS, et al. Platelet to lymphocyte ratio as a new prognostic for patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2015;11:288–92. Article PubMed
15. Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:343–6. Article PubMed
16. Contal C, O’Quigley J. An application of changepoint methods in studying the effect of age on survival in breast cancer. Comput Stat Data Anal. 1999;30:253–70. Article
17. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–87. Article PubMed
18. Gronnesby JK, Borgan O. A method for checking regression models in survival analysis based on the risk score. Lifetime Data Anal. 1996;2:315–28. Article PubMed
19. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr, D'Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2008;27:157–72. Article PubMed
20. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011;30:11–21. Article PubMed PMC
21. Chambless LE, Cummiskey CP, Cui G. Several methods to assess improvement in risk prediction models: extension to survival analysis. Stat Med. 2011;30:22–38. Article PubMed
22. Uno H, Tian L, Cai T, Kohane IS, Wei LJ. A unified inference procedure for a class of measures to assess improvement in risk prediction systems with survival data. Stat Med. 2013;32:2430–42. Article PubMed PMC
23. Beuselinck B, Vano YA, Oudard S, Wolter P, De Smet R, Depoorter L, et al. Prognostic impact of baseline serum Creactive protein in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with sunitinib. BJU Int. 2014;114:81–9. Article PubMed
24. Patil S, Figlin RA, Hutson TE, Michaelson MD, Negrier S, Kim ST, et al. Prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival with sunitinib targeted therapy and with cytokine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:295–300. Article PubMed
25. Yildiz I, Sen F, Kilic L, Ekenel M, Ordu C, Kilicaslan I, et al. Prognostic factors associated with the response to sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Oncol. 2013;20:e546–53. Article PubMed PMC
26. Fumagalli LA, Vinke J, Hoff W, Ypma E, Brivio F, Nespoli A. Lymphocyte counts independently predict overall survival in advanced cancer patients: a biomarker for IL-2 immunotherapy. J Immunother. 2003;26:394–402. Article PubMed
27. Song W, Yeh CR, He D, Wang Y, Xie H, Pang ST, et al. Infiltrating neutrophils promote renal cell carcinoma progression via VEGFa/HIF2alpha and estrogen receptor beta signals. Oncotarget. 2015;6:19290–304. Article PubMed PMC
28. Uzzo RG, Rayman P, Kolenko V, Clark PE, Bloom T, Ward AM, et al. Mechanisms of apoptosis in T cells from patients with renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;5:1219–29. PubMed
29. Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenon: stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:1604–8. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Correlation of Prognostic Nutritional Index and Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index with the Recurrence and Prognosis in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma with the Stage of III/IV
Manjun Ye, Lixia Zhang
International Journal of General Medicine.2024; Volume 17: 2289. CrossRef
Evaluating the Prognostic Variables for Overall Survival in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis Of 29,366 Patients
Bruce Li, Swati Sood, Melissa J. Huynh, Nicholas E. Power
JU Open Plus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
The relationship between complete blood cell count-derived inflammatory biomarkers and benign prostatic hyperplasia in middle-aged and elderly individuals in the United States: Evidence from NHANES 2001–2008
Chengdong Shi, Hongliang Cao, Guoqiang Zeng, Lei Yang, Yuantao Wang, Alaa A. A. Aljabali
PLOS ONE.2024; 19(7): e0306860. CrossRef
Evaluation of prognostic factors for late recurrence in clear cell renal carcinoma: an institutional study
Diana Voskuil-Galoş, Tudor Călinici, Andra Piciu, Adina Nemeş
Frontiers in Oncology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Plasma carnitine, choline, γ-butyrobetaine, and trimethylamine-N-oxide, but not zonulin, are reduced in overweight/obese patients with pre/diabetes or impaired glycemia
Alia Snouper, Violet Kasabri, Nailya Bulatova, Maysa Suyagh, Monther Sadder, Khaldoun Shnewer, Ismail Yousef
International Journal of Diabetes in Developing Countries.2023; 43(4): 592. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence-based prediction of overall survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma
Ella Barkan, Camillo Porta, Simona Rabinovici-Cohen, Valentina Tibollo, Silvana Quaglini, Mimma Rizzo
Frontiers in Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio for Small Renal Cell Carcinomas after Image-Guided Cryoablation or Radio-Frequency Ablation
Aqua Asif, Vinson Wai-Shun Chan, Filzah Hanis Osman, Jasmine Sze-Ern Koe, Alexander Ng, Oliver Edward Burton, Jon Cartledge, Michael Kimuli, Naveen Vasudev, Christy Ralph, Satinder Jagdev, Selina Bhattarai, Jonathan Smith, James Lenton, Tze Min Wah
Cancers.2023; 15(7): 2187. CrossRef
A meta-analysis of the platelet-lymphocyte ratio: A notable prognostic factor in renal cell carcinoma
Xiao Zhou, Guangcheng Luo
The International Journal of Biological Markers.2022; 37(2): 123. CrossRef
Prognostic Role of Systemic Inflammatory Markers in Patients Undergoing Surgical Resection for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Uiju Cho, Yeoun-Eun Sung, Min-Sik Kim, Youn-Soo Lee
Biomedicines.2022; 10(6): 1268. CrossRef
Prognostic value of glucose to lymphocyte ratio for patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy: A multi-institutional, propensity score matching cohort study
Jinliang Ni, Ziye Li, Wei Song, Houliang Zhang, Yidi Wang, Yifan Zhang, Haipeng Zhang, Guangcan Yang, Jun Xie, Keyi Wang, Bo Peng, Weipu Mao
Frontiers in Surgery.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Associations between Pretreatment Body Composition Features and Clinical Outcomes among Patients with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Blockade
Yasser Ged, Alejandro Sanchez, Sujata Patil, Andrea Knezevic, Emily Stein, Stacey Petruzella, Kate Weiss, Cihan Duzgol, Joshua Chaim, Oguz Akin, Marina Mourtzakis, Michael T. Paris, Jessica Scott, Fengshen Kuo, Ritesh Kotecha, A. Ari Hakimi, Chung-Han Lee
Clinical Cancer Research.2022; 28(23): 5180. CrossRef
Exploratory Analysis of the Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Prognostic Value in the Adjuvant Renal Cell Cancer Setting
Anup Patel, Alain Ravaud, Robert J Motzer, Allan J Pantuck, Michael Staehler, Bernard Escudier, Jean-François Martini, Mariajose Lechuga, Xun Lin, Daniel J George
Future Oncology.2021; 17(4): 403. CrossRef
Preoperative anaemia and thrombocytosis predict adverse prognosis in non‐metastatic renal cell carcinoma with tumour thrombus
Ruotao Xiao, Chuxiao Xu, Wei He, Lei Liu, Hongxian Zhang, Cheng Liu, Lulin Ma
BMC Urology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Real-World Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma According to Risk Factors: The STAR-TOR Registry
Arne Strauss, Marianne Schmid, Michael Rink, Michael Moran, Stephan Bernhardt, Marcus Hubbe, Lothar Bergmann, Katrin Schlack, Martin Boegemann
Future Oncology.2021; 17(18): 2325. CrossRef
Systemic Inflammation Response Index is an Independent Prognostic Indicator for Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: A Multi-Institutional Cohort Study
Weipu Mao, Si Sun, Ting He, Xin Jin, Jianping Wu, Bin Xu, Guangyuan Zhang, Keyi Wang, Ming Chen
Cancer Management and Research.2021; Volume 13: 6437. CrossRef
Can Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index Create a New Perspective for the IMDC Scoring System in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma?
Fatma Bugdayci Basal, Cengiz Karacin, Irem Bilgetekin, Omur Berna Oksuzoglu
Urologia Internationalis.2021; 105(7-8): 666. CrossRef
Post-surgical Regression of Thoracic Metastases After Salvage Lobectomy for Recurrent Renal Cell Carcinoma
Alessia Stanzi, Elena Verzoni, Margherita Ruggirello, Luigi Rolli, Ugo Pastorino
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer.2020; 18(3): e284. CrossRef
Peking University Third Hospital score: a comprehensive system to predict intra-operative blood loss in radical nephrectomy and thrombectomy
Zhuo Liu, Xun Zhao, Hong-Xian Zhang, Run-Zhuo Ma, Li-Wei Li, Shi-Ying Tang, Guo-Liang Wang, Shu-Dong Zhang, Shu-Min Wang, Xiao-Jun Tian, Lu-Lin Ma
Chinese Medical Journal.2020; 133(10): 1166. CrossRef
Prognostic Value of Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
Guilherme Nader Marta, Pedro Isaacsson Velho, Renata R. C. Bonadio, Mirella Nardo, Sheila F. Faraj, Manoel Carlos L. de Azevedo Souza, David Q. B. Muniz, Diogo Assed Bastos, Carlos Dzik
Pathology & Oncology Research.2020; 26(4): 2489. CrossRef
The Clinical Significance of Routine Risk Categorization in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma and its Impact on Treatment Decision-Making: A Systematic Review
Shouki Bazarbashi, Abdullah Alsharm, Faisal Azam, Hazem El Ashry, Jamal Zekri
Future Oncology.2020; 16(34): 2879. CrossRef
Patient selection and risk factors in the changing treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma
Ehab Abdou, Ravi M. Pedapenki, Mohamed Abouagour, Abdul R. Zar, Emad Dawoud, Dalia Elshourbagy, Humaid O. Al-Shamsi, Enrique Grande
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy.2020; 20(10): 831. CrossRef
Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as a Prognostic Factor of Disease-free Survival in Postnephrectomy High-risk Locoregional Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of the S-TRAC Trial
Anup Patel, Alain Ravaud, Robert J. Motzer, Allan J. Pantuck, Michael Staehler, Bernard Escudier, Jean-François Martini, Mariajose Lechuga, Xun Lin, Daniel J. George
Clinical Cancer Research.2020; 26(18): 4863. CrossRef
External validation of the systemic immune-inflammation index as a prognostic factor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma and its implementation within the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium model
Pawel Chrom, Jakub Zolnierek, Lubomir Bodnar, Rafal Stec, Cezary Szczylik
International Journal of Clinical Oncology.2019; 24(5): 526. CrossRef
Assessing Outcomes and Prognostic Factors for First-Line Therapy in Elderly Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Real-Life Data From a Single United Kingdom Institution
Mario Uccello, Tasnim Alam, Haider Abbas, Ajith Nair, Jennifer Paskins, Guy Faust
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer.2019; 17(3): e658. CrossRef
Towards individualized therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma
Ritesh R. Kotecha, Robert J. Motzer, Martin H. Voss
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.2019; 16(10): 621. CrossRef
The impact of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte, platelet-to-lymphocyte and haemoglobin-to-platelet ratio on localised renal cell carcinoma oncologic outcomes
S. Albisinni, D. Pretot, W. Al Hajj Obeid, F. Aoun, T. Quackels, A. Peltier, T. Roumeguère
Progrès en Urologie.2019; 29(8-9): 423. CrossRef
Prognostic Significance of Systemic Inflammatory Response in Patients with Synchronous and Metachronous Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors
Joongwon Choi, Tae Jin Kim, Hyun Hwan Sung, Hwang Gyun Jeon, Byong Chang Jeong, Seong Soo Jeon, Hyun Moo Lee, Han Yong Choi, Minyong Kang, Seong Il Seo
The Korean Journal of Urological Oncology.2019; 17(3): 150. CrossRef
The Role of Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio, Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio, and Platelets in the Prognosis of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
Joanna Huszno, Zofia Kolosza, Jolanta Mrochem-Kwarciak, Tomasz Rutkowski, Krzysztof Skladowski
Oncology.2019; 97(1): 7. CrossRef
Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in advanced Cancer: Review and meta-analysis
Bo Li, Pingting Zhou, Yujie Liu, Haifeng Wei, Xinghai Yang, Tianrui Chen, Jianru Xiao
Clinica Chimica Acta.2018; 483: 48. CrossRef
Combined neutrophil/platelet/lymphocyte/differentiation score predicts chemosensitivity in advanced gastric cancer
Zhenhua Huang, Yantan Liu, Chen Yang, Xiaoyin Li, Changqie Pan, Jinjun Rao, Nailin Li, Wangjun Liao, Li Lin
BMC Cancer.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
The clinical use of the platelet to lymphocyte ratio and lymphocyte to monocyte ratio as prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Xuemin Wang, Shiqiang Su, Yuanshan Guo
Oncotarget.2017; 8(48): 84506. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Incorporating Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-lymphocyte Ratio in Place of Neutrophil Count and Platelet Count Improves Prognostic Accuracy of the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Model

Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50(1):103-110. Published online March 3, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.033

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Fig. 1. Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) stratified by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups.

Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) stratified by the modified International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (MIMDC) risk groups.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Variable	No. (%) (n=321)
Age, median (range, yr)	62 (22-85)
Time from diagnosis to TKI therapy initiation, median (range, mo)	13.5 (0-270)
NLR, median (range)	2.9 (0.5-40.6)
PLR, median (range)	163 (23-1,158)
Male sex	215 (67.0)
KPS (%)
100	125 (38.9)
80-90	187 (58.3)
≤ 70	9 (2.8)
Histology
Clear cell	302 (94.1)
Other	19 (5.9)
Sarcomatoid features	18 (5.6)
Fuhrman grade^a)
1	14 (4.9)
2	157 (54.7)
3	82 (28.6)
4	34 (11.8)
TNM T stage^b)
T1	56 (20.3)
T2	79 (28.6)
T3	131 (47.5)
T4	10 (3.6)
Prior immunotherapy	35 (10.9)
First-line TKI treatment
Sunitinib	240 (74.8)
Pazopanib	57 (17.8)
Sorafenib	24 (7.4)
No. of metastatic sites
1	69 (21.5)
2	93 (29.0)
> 2	159 (49.5)
Lung metastases	231 (72.0)
Lymph node metastases	153 (47.7)
Liver metastases	68 (21.2)
Bone metastases	96 (29.9)
Brain metastases	16 (5.0)
Haemoglobin < LLN	62 (19.3)
Serum corrected calcium > ULN	35 (10.9)
Neutrophils > ULN	26 (8.1)
Platelets > ULN	44 (13.7)

Variable	IMDC			Modified-IMDC
Variable	p-value	Hazard ratio	95% CI	p-value	Hazard ratio	95% CI
KPS ≤ 70	< 0.001	5.52	2.69-11.33	< 0.001	6.43	3.13-13.20
Time^a) < 1 yr	0.007	1.46	1.11-1.91	0.005	1.47	1.13-1.93
Haemoglobin < LLN	< 0.001	2.28	1.64-3.18	< 0.001	1.91	1.35-2.70
Corrected calcium > ULN	0.034	1.54	1.03-2.28	0.034	1.54	1.03-2.31
Neutrophil count > ULN	0.121	1.47	0.90-2.38	-	-	-
Platelet count > ULN	0.021	1.57	1.07-2.29	-	-	-
NLR ≥ 3.6	-	-	-	0.038	1.39	1.02-1.91
PLR ≥ 157	-	-	-	0.004	1.64	1.18-2.28

Measure	Individual risk factor		Three risk group
Measure	IMDC	Modified-IMDC	IMDC	Modified-IMDC
Concordance index (95% CI)	0.677 (0.638 to 0.716)	0.706 (0.665 to 0.747)	0.641 (0.604 to 0.678)	0.669 (0.630 to 0.708)
Bias-corrected concordance index	0.671	0.699	0.641	0.669
BIC	2,190.7	2,176.2	2,198.1	2,183.2
Generalized R²	0.202	0.238	0.123	0.163
IDI
A_event	0.022	-	0.023	-
A_non-event	–0.022	-	–0.022	-
Point estimate (95% CI)	0.044 (0.001 to 0.093)	-	0.045 (–0.006 to 0.099)	-
p-value	0.046	-	0.084	-
cNRI
P_event	0.592	-	0.419	-
P_non-event	0.313	-	0.254	-
Point estimate (95% CI)	0.279 (0.091 to 0.377)	-	0.165 (0.062 to 0.375)	-
p-value	0.004	-	0.004	-

Table 1. Patient characteristics at the start of first-line TKI therapy

TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor; NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; LLN, lower limit of normal; ULN, upper limit of normal.

Number of evaluated patients was 287,

Number of evaluated patients was 276.

Table 2. Multivariable Cox regression analyses of the IMDC and modified-IMDC models