Advertisement

Clinical and Translational Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 836–844 | Cite as

Impact of systemic inflammation biomarkers on the survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients

  • K. HolubEmail author
  • A. Biete
Research Article

Abstract

Background

Inflammatory biomarkers have recently attracted attention as valuable prognosticators and predictors of survival outcomes in many cancers. We describe a new pre-treatment biomarker, expressed as the eosinophil–lymphocytes ratio (ELR) and validate other biomarkers such as the level of circulating eosinophils, neutrophil–lymphocytes ratio (NLR), platelet–lymphocytes ratio (PLR) and systemic immune-inflammatory index (SII) as prognostic factors in cervical cancer (CC) patients.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of 151 consecutive patients diagnosed with CC and treated according to the European guidelines with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy and/or surgery in our institution from 2009 to 2016 were evaluated. Patients were categorized into two different groups based on the optimal cut-off for each biomarker, according to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Impact of blood biomarkers on overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CCS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were examined.

Results

Higher values of ELR, eosinophils and age ≥ 50 years were associated with better OS in univariate Cox analysis, while high NLR, PLR, SII, neutrophils ≥ 7.0, Bulky tumor and FIGO stage III–IV at diagnosis were prognosticators of worse survival outcomes. In multivariate analysis, the only factors independently impacting OS were ELR ≥ 0.07 (HR = 0.49, p = 0.048) and FIGO stage III–IV (HR = 2.5, p = 0.018). High PLR and SII were associated with shorter PFR.

Conclusions

Increased values of ELR and eosinophils portend better OS in CC. To our best knowledge, this is the first report describing eosinophils-related biomarker as an independent prognostic factor in CC.

Keywords

Systemic inflammation Cervix cancer Neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) Eosinophils Eosinophil–lymphocyte ratio (ELR) 

Notes

Funding

There was no specific funding for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest. Some preliminary results of this study were presented at the 37th ESTRO Annual Meeting held in Barcelona, Spain.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study, involving humans participants, were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

All patients included signed the institutional informed consent for treatment and data processing (no specific informed consent was applied).

References

  1. 1.
    National Cancer Institute: SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Endometrial Cancer. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html. Accessed 29 Aug 2018.
  2. 2.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colombo N, Carinelli S Colombo A, Marini C, et al. Cervical cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(Suppl 7):27–32. https://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/suppl_7/vii27.fullpdf+html. Accessed 29 Aug 2018.
  4. 4.
    Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M. Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell. 2010;140:883–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guthrie GJ, Charles KA, Roxburgh CS, Horgan PG, McMillan DC, Clarke SJ. The systemic inflammation-based neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio: experience in patients with cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;88(1):218–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2013.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ethier JL, Desautels DN, Templeton AJ, Oza A, Amir E, Lheureux S. Is the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio prognostic of survival outcomes in gynaecologic cancers? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145:584–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Menczer J. Preoperative elevated platelet count and thrombocytosis in gynecologic malignancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(1):9–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4212-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cools-Lartigue J, Spicer J, McDonald B, Gowing S, Chow S, Giannias B, Bourdeau F, Kubes P, Ferri L. Neutrophil extracellular traps sequester circulating tumor cells and promote metastasis. J Clin Investig. 2013;123:3446–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Labelle M, Begum S, Hynes R. Direct signaling between platelets and cancer cells induces an epithelial-mesenchymallLike transition and promotes metastasis. Cancer Cell. 2011;20:576–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krishnan V, Schaar B, Tallapragada S, Dorigo O. Tumor associated macrophages in gynecologic cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;149(1):205–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.01.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernandes PC Jr, Gracia CB, Micheli DC, Cunha FQ, et al. Circulating neutrophils may play a role in the host response in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17(5):1068–74.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00922.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang QT, Man QQ, Hu J, Yang YL, Zhang YM, Wang W, Zhong M, Yu YM. Prognostic significance of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Oncotarget. 2017;8(10):16755–64.  https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.15157.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu J, Chen M, Liang C, Su W. Prognostic value of the pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in cervical cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Oncotarget. 2017;8(8):13400–12.  https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.14541.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cun S, Shin K, Kim KH, Kim HY, et al. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio predicts recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Cancer. 2017;8(12):2205–11.  https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.19173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koulis T, Kornaga E, Banerjee R, Phan T, Ghatage P, et al. Anemia, leukocytosis and thrombocytosis as prognostic factors in patients with cervical cancer treated with radical chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2017;4:51–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2017.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Escande A, Haie-Meder C, Maroun P, Gouy S, Mazeron R, et al. Neutrophilia in locally advanced cervical cancer: a novel biomarker for image-guided adaptive brachytherapy? Oncotarget. 2016;7:74886–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhong JH, Huang DH, Chen ZY. Prognostic role of systemic immune-inflamation index in solid tumors: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(43):75381–8.  https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.18856.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reichman H, Karo-Atar D, Munitz A. Emerging roles for eosinophils in the tumour microenvironment. Trends Cancer. 2016;2:664–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scherer T. Tumor associated blood eosinophilia and eosinophilic pleural effusion: case report and review of the literature. Internet J Pulm Med. 1996;1(2).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tian G, Mi J, Wei X, Zhao D, Qiao L, Yang C, Li X, Zhang S, Li X, Wang B. Circulating interleukin-6 and cancer: a meta-analysis using Mendelian randomization. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11394.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Driel WJ, Hogendoorn PC, Jansen FW, et al. Tumor-associated eosinophilic infiltrate of cervical cancer is indicative for less effective immune response. Hum Pathol. 1996;27(9):904–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sakkal S, Miller S, Apostolopoulos V, Nurgali K. Eosinophils in cancer: favourable or unfavorable? Curr Med Chem. 2016;23:650–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lofti K, Kaltenmeier C, Lotze MT, Bergman C. Until death do us part: necrosis and oxidation promote the tumor microenvironment. Transfus Med Hemother. 2016;43:120–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis BP, Rothenberg ME. Eosinophils and cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2014;2:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Minton K. Granulocytes: Eosinophils enable the antitumor T cell response. Nat Rev Immunol. 2015;15:333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dalal BI, Das KC, Dutta TK, Malakar K. Local and systemic eosinophilia in patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix undergoing radiation therapy: correlation with radiation response. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1992;4:18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li-Chung Y, Mu-Soon L, Chung-Liang T, et al. Uterine cervical cancer associated with eosinophilic infiltration. J Obstet Gycaecol Res. 1984.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.1984.tb00036.x.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Inoue T, et al. Cervical carcinoma and eosinophils. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1981;21:320–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-1229(81)90221.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carretero R, Sektioglu IM, Garbi N, Salgado OC, Beckhove P, Hammerling GJ. Eosinophils orchestrate cancer rejection by normalizing tumour vessels and enhancing infiltration of CD8 (+) T cells. Nat Immunol. 2015;16:609–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chun S, Shin K, Kim KH, et al. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio predicts recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Cancer. 2017;8(12):2205–11.  https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.19173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiation Oncology DepartmentUniversity of Barcelona, Hospital Clinic de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.IDIBAPS (Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations