Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Cancer 1/2021

Open Access 01.12.2021 | Research article

Combined prognostic value of the SUVmax derived from FDG-PET and the lymphocyte-monocyte ratio in patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy

verfasst von: Kewei Zhao, Chunsheng Wang, Fang Shi, Yong Huang, Li Ma, Minghuan Li, Yipeng Song

Erschienen in: BMC Cancer | Ausgabe 1/2021

Abstract

Background

We evaluated the prognostic potential of tumor 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake derived from positron emission tomography (PET) and known inflammatory hematological markers, both individually and in combination, for chemosensitivity and survival in patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving first-line chemotherapy.

Methods

A total of 149 patients with stage IIIB and IV NSCLC (based on TNM 7th edition) were retrospectively reviewed. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) were used to quantitatively assess FDG uptake. The lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were selected as hematological markers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for the determination of optimal cut-off values to predict chemotherapeutic response.

Results

Patients with SUVmax > 11.6 or LMR ≤3.73 exhibited a significantly lower objective response rate (ORR) to chemotherapy (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). Through multivariable logistic regression analysis, both the SUVmax and LMR were identified as independent predictive factors for chemotherapeutic response (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001). Furthermore, a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model identified a high SUVmax (> 11.6) and low LMR (≤3.73) as independent predictors of poor PFS (p < 0.001 and p = 0.025) and OS (p < 0.001 and p = 0.032). A novel score system was constructed based on the SUVmax and LMR (SUV_LMR score), and patients were stratified into three subgroups. The patients with a score of 0 had a significantly higher ORR (88.9%) than did those with a score of 1 (59.6%) and score of 2 (25.0%) (p < 0.001). Moreover, multivariable Cox analysis further identified the SUV_LMR score as an independent prognostic factor for PFS (p < 0.001) and OS (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Pre-treatment SUVmax and LMR were not only predictive factors for chemotherapeutic response but also independent prognostic factors of survival in stage IIIB-IV NSCLC. Moreover, the SUV_LMR score, which is based on primary tumor metabolic activity and the systemic inflammatory response, might provide a promising tool to predict chemosensitivity, recurrence and survival of advanced NSCLC.
Hinweise
Kewei Zhao and Chunsheng Wang contributed equally to this work.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
NSCLC
Non-small cell lung cancer
TNM
Tumor, node, metastasis
FDG-PET/CT
Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography
SUVmax
Maximum standardized uptake value
LMR
Lymphocyte-monocyte ratio
NLR
Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio
PLR
Platelet- lymphocyte ratio
ECOG PS
Eastern cooperative oncology group performance status
WBC
White blood cell
ORR
Objective response rates
CR
Complete response
PR
Partial response
SD
Stable disease
PD
Progressive disease
OS
Overall survival
PFS
Progression-free survival
ROC
Receiver-operating characteristic
AUC
Area under the curves
VEGF
Vascular endothelial growth factor

Background

Globally, lung cancer has 5-year survival rates as low as 15% [1]. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common pathological type of lung cancer, accounting for 85% of all cases [1]. Owing to lack of early symptoms, close to 70% of patients are already in late stage when they are initially diagnosed with NSCLC, and most of them have lost the opportunity for surgical therapy [2]. For advanced stage IIIB and IV NSCLC, the front line therapy remains platinum-based doublet chemotherapy [3]. However, the response rate to chemotherapy and the survival in advanced NSCLC are not ideal [4]. In order to develop appropriate treatment guidelines and balance therapeutic toxicity in individual patients, precise prediction of chemotherapy sensitivity and prognosis is crucial. The anatomical range of the tumor, which is expressed by the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification, is recognized as the most powerful prognostic factor for lung cancer [5]. However, TNM staging is only an anatomical description of the tumor and is not enough to develop treatment programs and evaluate prognosis. In the future, the most promising will be the composite prognostic model for NSCLC based on biological characteristics in conjunction TNM staging [6].
Reprogramming energy metabolism is one of the biological hallmarks in cancer [7]. Indeed, significantly elevated glucose uptake and utilization have been observed in various types of tumors [7]. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT), which can noninvasively quantify glucose uptake that precedes anatomic changes, has been widely applied in NSCLC diagnosis, staging, response evaluation and survival prediction [8]. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) is a commonly used parameter for quantifying FDG uptake and has been reported to have a strong prognostic value for NSCLC [913]. The common conclusion of these studies is that higher values of SUVmax could predict a high risk of disease recurrence or death. However, this conclusion is still controversial since some studies also demonstrated that SUVmax cannot provide reliable prognostic information for NSCLC patients [14, 15]. Therefore, the prognostic role of SUVmax in NSCLC needs further validation.
Tumor-promoting inflammation is another recognized biological hallmark of cancer [7]. Accumulating evidence has demonstrated that the cancer-related inflammation response can enhance tumor progression by facilitating angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis [1618]. Hematological markers of systemic inflammation include the lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), all of which are prognostic markers for a range of solid tumors, including NSCLC [1926]. However, the optimal hematological markers for predicting clinical outcomes in NSCLC have yet to be defined [2226].
The combined evaluation of FDG uptake of primary tumor and systemic inflammatory response may provide complementary information and may be highly effective at predicting outcomes in advanced NSCLC patients. Hence, we combined the two factors to explore their integrated predictive value for treatment response and survival in stage IIIB-IV NSCLC patients.

Methods

Patient selection

We reviewed the clinical data of patients pathologically diagnosed with NSCLC from September 2013 to June 2017. All enrolled patients received 18F-FDG PET/CT scanning within two weeks prior to treatment. According to the PET/CT and other imaging examinations, all patients were staged based on 7th TNM staging system. Patients were included according to: 1) age, 18–75 years; 2) clinical stage IIIB or IV; 3) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0–1; 4) no history of other malignancies; 5) without acute infections or autoimmune diseases; and 6) received ≥4 cycles of first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Data regarding age, sex, ECOG PS, smoking history, lesion type, histological type, and clinical stage were extracted and analysed. All patients received first-line chemotherapy and additional radiotherapy if indicated.

18F-FDG PET/CT scanning and image analysis

18F-FDG PET/CT was performed on an advanced PET/CT scanner (Discovery LS, GE Healthcare). All of them with 6-h fasting and ensure blood glucose level was< 200 ml/dL before receiving an average of 5.5 MBq/kg 18F-FDG intravenous injections. One hour later, a whole-body PET and CT scans began, ranging from the base of the skull to the proximal thigh. After CT-derived attenuation correction, the PET images were reconstructed by the ordered subsets expectation maximization algorithm. The reconstruction layer thickness was 4.25 mm and the image matrix size were 128 × 128. The CT, PET and fused images were displayed on the Xeleris workstation (GE Healthcare). Two experienced diagnostic specialists reviewed the PET/CT images independently. FDG uptake was quantified using SUV, and the highest pixel value of SUV within region of interest (ROI) was defined as the SUVmax.

Definition of hematological markers

All patients underwent routine blood tests within one week before treatment. The peripheral counts of white blood cell (WBC), lymphocytes, neutrophils and platelets were recorded. The LMR was defined as the ratio of the lymphocyte count to the monocyte count. The NLR was calculated as the neutrophil count divided by the lymphocyte count, and the PLR was calculated as the platelet count divided by the lymphocyte count.

Evaluation of response and follow-up

After four weeks of treatment completion, tumor response was assessed based on the RECIST1.1. According to these criteria, responders were classified as complete response (CR) and partial response (PR), and non-responders were classified as stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD). Objective response rates (ORRs) were calculated as the percentage of CR and PR among all treated patients.
The patients were followed up every 3 months for the first 2 years, every 6 months for the next 3 years, and every year after 5 years. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of treatment initiation to the date of death or final follow-up. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the date of treatment initiation to the date of diagnosis of local recurrence/distant metastasis, or final follow-up. Medical records and telephone interviews were used to compile follow-up data of patients. The median follow-up was 16.1 months (range: 4.7–63.2 months). The last follow-up date was December 10, 2018.

Statistical analysis

Study data were analyzed on SPSS version 22.0 and MedCalc program version 18.11. Correlations between SUVmax and hematological markers were evaluated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient tests. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to obtain optimal cut-off values of SUVmax and hematological markers for identifying the treatment responders. Delong’s tests were used to compare the area under the curves (AUCs) of the three hematological markers. The correlation of each variables and treatment response were assessed via logistic regression models. Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves and log-rank tests were used for the assessment of patient survival. Prognostic factors with p < 0.05 in univariable analyses were entered into multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. All tests were two-sided and p < 0.05 was deemed statistically significant.

Results

Patient data

In total, 149 eligible patients were included into analysis. Among them, 111 (74.5%) were male and 38 (25.5%) were female, with a median age of 61 (range: 36–75) years. Regarding histological subtype, 55 (36.9%) had squamous cell carcinoma, and 94 (63.1%) were diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. Amongst them, 69 (46.3%) were at stage IIIB, and 80 (53.7%) were at stage IV. All included patients received 4–6 (median: 4) cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and the regimens including cisplatin/paclitaxel, cisplatin/docetaxel, cisplatin/gemcitabine or cisplatin/pemetrexed. Detailed baseline characteristics were listed in the Table 1.
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of 149 patients
Characteristics
Number (%)
Median (range)
Age (years)
 
61 (36–75)
  ≤ 65
95 (63.8%)
 
 >65
54 (36.2%)
 
Sex
 Male
111 (74.5%)
 
 Female
38 (25.5%)
 
Smoking
 Never
60 (40.3%)
 
 Ever
89 (59.7%)
 
ECOG PS
 0
73 (49.0%)
 
 1
76 (51.0%)
 
Histological type
 Adenocarcinoma
94 (63.1%)
 
 Squamous
55 (36.9%)
 
Lesion type
 Central
78 (52.3%)
 
 Peripheral
71 (47.7%)
 
Clinical stage
 IIIB
69 (46.3%)
 
 IV
80 (53.7%)
 
CEA
 Normal
95 (63.8%)
 
 Increased
54 (36.2%)
 
Albumin
 Decreased
50 (33.6%)
 
 Normal
99 (66.4%)
 
WBC (× 109/L)
 
7.6 (3.6–12)
LMR
 
3.25 (0.98–12.5)
NLR
 
2.78 (1.05–8.14)
PLR
 
143 (35–352)
SUVmax
 
11.8 (3.3–28.5)
ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, WBC white blood cell, LMR lymphocyte-monocyte ratio, NLR neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet-lymphocyte ratio, SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value

Correlation between SUVmax and hematological markers

From correlation analysis, LMR (r = − 0.207, p = 0.011) and NLR (r = 0.229, p = 0.005) showed significant yet quite weak correlations with SUVmax, while PLR did not (r = 0.086, p = 0.296) (Fig. 1).

Analysis of ROC curves

The AUC of SUVmax for identifying responders was 0.705, with an optimal cut-off value of 11.6 (sensitivity 72.5%, specificity 63.7%) (Fig. 2). The AUC of LMR, NLR and PLR was 0.732, 0.615 and 0.566, respectively. According to the Delong’s test, the AUC of LMR was higher than that of NLR (ΔAUC = 0.117, p = 0.004) and of PLR (ΔAUC = 0.165, p = 0.001). The optimal cut-off values of LMR, NLR, and PLR were 3.73 (sensitivity 60%, specificity 82.6%), 2.67 (sensitivity 65.2%, specificity 56.2%), and 164 (sensitivity 46.4%, specificity 67.5%), respectively (Fig. 2). Patients were divided into high and low groups based on these optimal cut-off values.

Univariable and multivariable analyses of tumor response

Of the 149 NSCLC patients, CR, PR, SD and PD occurred in 3 (2.0%), 77 (51.7%), 61 (40.9%) and 8 (5.4%) cases, respectively. The overall ORR was 53.7% (80/149).
In univariable analyses, those with SUVmax values ≤11.6 had a higher ORR than did those with SUVmax > 11.6 (72.5% vs 37.5%, p < 0.001), whereas those with LMR > 3.73 had a higher ORR than did those with LMR ≤ 3.73 (80% vs 36%, p < 0.001). In addition to high SUVmax and low LMR, old age (p = 0.042), high ECOG PS (p = 0.001), advanced clinical stage (p = 0.004), increased CEA level (p = 0.042), high WBC (p = 0.003) and NLR (p = 0.009) were also associated with poor ORRs.
In multivariable analyses, the SUVmax (odds ratio [OR]: 0.217; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.090–0.525; p = 0.001), LMR (OR: 0.167; 95% CI: 0.062–0.454; p < 0.001), and clinical stage (OR: 0.283; 95% CI: 0.112–0.718; p = 0.008) were demonstrated as independent predictors of treatment response (Table 2).
Table 2
Univariable and multivariable analyses of the first-line response to chemotherapy
Variables
Tumor response
Univariable Analysis
Multivariable analysis
CR + PR
SD + PD
ORR
OR (95% CI)
p value
OR (95% CI)
p value
Age (years)
    
0.042*
 
0.251
  ≤ 65
57
38
60.0%
Ref.
 
Ref.
 
 >65
23
31
42.6%
0.495 (0.251–0.974)
 
0.593 (0.243–1.447)
 
Sex
    
0.177
  
 Male
56
55
50.5%
0.594 (0.279–1.266)
   
 Female
24
14
63.2%
Ref.
   
Smoking
    
0.550
  
 Never
34
26
56.7%
Ref.
   
 Ever
46
43
51.7%
0.818 (0.423–1.580)
   
ECOG PS
    
0.001**
 
0.302
 0
49
24
67.1%
Ref.
 
Ref.
 
 1
31
45
40.8%
0.337 (0.173–0.659)
 
0.646 (0.282–1.481)
 
Lesion type
    
0.344
  
 Peripheral
41
30
57.7%
Ref.
   
 Central
39
39
50.0%
0.732 (0.383–1.398)
   
Histological type
    
0.857
  
 Adenocarcinoma
51
43
54.3%
Ref.
   
 Squamous
29
26
52.7%
0.940 (0.483–1.832)
   
Clinical stage
    
0.004**
 
0.008**
 IIIB
46
23
66.7%
Ref.
 
Ref.
 
 IV
34
46
42.5%
0.370 (0.189–0.721)
 
0.283 (0.112–0.718)
 
CEA
    
0.042*
 
0.170
 Normal
57
38
60.0%
Ref.
 
Ref.
 
 Increased
23
31
42.6%
0.495 (0.251–0.974)
 
0.539 (0.223–1.303)
 
Albumin
    
0.093
  
 Decreased
22
28
44.0%
0.555 (0.279–1.104)
   
 Normal
58
41
58.6%
Ref.
   
WBC(×109/L)
    
0.003**
 
0.424
  ≤ 7.8
53
29
64.6%
Ref.
 
Ref.
 
 >7.8
27
40
40.3%
0.369 (0.190–0.719)
 
0.710 (0.307–1.644)
 
LMR
    
< 0.001***
 
< 0.001***
  ≤ 3.73
32
57
36.0%
0.140 (0.065–0.302)
 
0.167 (0.062–0.454)
 
 >3.73
48
12
80.0%
Ref.
 
Ref.
 
NLR
    
0.009**
 
0.737
  ≤ 2.67
45
24
65.2%
Ref.
 
Ref.
 
 >2.67
35
45
43.8%
0.415 (0.214–0.806)
 
1.176 (0.456–3.032)
 
PLR
    
0.084
  
  ≤ 164
54
37
59.3%
Ref.
   
 >164
26
32
44.8%
0.557 (0.286–1.083)
   
SUVmax
    
< 0.001***
 
0.001**
  ≤ 11.6
50
19
72.5%
Ref.
 
Ref.
 
 >11.6
30
50
37.5%
0.228 (0.114–0.457)
 
0.217 (0.090–0.525)
 
ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, WBC white blood cell, LMR lymphocyte-monocyte ratio, NLR neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet-lymphocyte ratio, SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value, CR complete response, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease, ORR objective response rate, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001

Univariable and multivariable analyses of PFS and OS

KM curves analysis showed that patients with a high SUVmax (> 11.6) exhibited significantly shorter PFS and OS than did those with low SUVmax (median PFS: 7.6 vs 13.4 months, p < 0.001; median OS: 14.5 vs 22.5 months, p < 0.001) (Fig. 3a-b). Similarly, the PFS and OS of patients with low LMR (≤3.73) were significantly lower than those with high LMR (median PFS: 7.1 vs 13.4 months, p < 0.001; Median OS: 14.4 vs 21.9 months, p < 0.001) (Fig. 3c-d).
In the univariable analysis, age (PFS, p = 0.015; OS, p = 0.008), ECOG PS (PFS, p = 0.007; OS, p = 0.019), clinical stage (PFS, p = 0.017; OS, p = 0.045), first-line response (PFS, p < 0.001; OS, p < 0.001), LMR (PFS, p < 0.001; OS, p < 0.001) and SUVmax (PFS, p < 0.001; OS, p < 0.001) were significantly correlated with PFS and OS. Albumin level also correlated with PFS (p = 0.023) (Table 3).
Table 3
Univariable analyses of PFS and OS
Variables
PFS
OS
HR
95% CI
p value
HR
95% CI
p value
Age (years)
  
0.015*
  
0.008**
  ≤ 65
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 >65
1.567
1.093–2.248
 
1.666
1.142–2.429
 
Sex
  
0.174
  
0.365
 Male
1.320
0.885–1.968
 
1.216
0.796–1.859
 
 Female
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
Smoking
  
0.391
  
0.717
 Never
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 Ever
1.168
0.819–1.665
 
1.070
0.741–1.547
 
ECOG PS
  
0.007**
  
0.019*
 0
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 1
1.610
1.136–2.283
 
1.548
1.073–2.234
 
Lesion type
  
0.086
  
0.443
 Peripheral
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 Central
1.357
0.958–1.922
 
1.152
0.802–1.655
 
Histological type
  
0.835
  
0.816
 Adenocarcinoma
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 Squamous
1.038
0.728–1.482
 
0.957
0.661–1.386
 
Clinical stage
  
0.017*
  
0.045*
 IIIB
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 IV
1.529
1.078–2.168
 
1.450
1.008–2.086
 
First-line response
  
< 0.001***
  
< 0.001***
 CR/PR
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 SD/PD
2.725
1.905–3.898
 
2.966
2.044–4.306
 
CEA
  
0.280
  
0.719
 Normal
1.219
0.851–1.746
 
1.071
0.737–1.557
 
 Increased
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
Albumin
  
0.023*
  
0.140
 Decreased
1.521
1.059–2.183
 
1.323
0.913–1.918
 
 Normal
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
WBC
  
0.098
  
0.158
  ≤ 7.8
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 >7.8
1.337
0.948–1.887
 
1.297
0.904–1.860
 
LMR
  
< 0.001***
  
< 0.001***
  ≤ 3.73
2.373
1.643–3.429
 
2.437
1.659–3.579
 
 >3.73
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
NLR
  
0.064
  
0.067
  ≤ 2.67
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 >2.67
1.395
0.981–1.984
 
1.403
0.977–2.017
 
PLR
  
0.107
  
0.101
  ≤ 164
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 >164
1.342
0.939–1.918
 
1.361
0.942–1.968
 
SUVmax
  
< 0.001***
  
< 0.001***
  ≤ 11.6
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 >11.6
2.400
1.674–3.440
 
2.976
2.024–4.375
 
LMR_SUV
  
< 0.001***
  
< 0.001***
 Score 0
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 Score 1
2.228
1.383–3.590
0.001**
2.426
1.441–4.085
0.001**
 Score 2
4.449
2.719–7.281
< 0.001***
5.361
3.172–9.058
< 0.001***
PFS progression-free survival, OS overall survival, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, CR complete response, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, WBC white blood cell, LMR lymphocyte-monocyte ratio, NLR neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet-lymphocyte ratio, SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence intervals. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001
In the multivariable analysis, the SUVmax was independently correlated with both PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.110; 95%CI: 1.400–3.179; p < 0.001) and OS (HR: 2.760; 95%CI: 1.789–4.257; p < 0.001). Furthermore, LMR was also independently associated with PFS (HR: 1.602; 95%CI: 1.060–2.420; p = 0.025) and OS (HR: 1.621; 95%CI: 1.042–2.521; p = 0.032). Other independent prognostic factors for PFS and OS included clinical stage (PFS, p = 0.003; OS, p = 0.002) and first-line response (PFS, p = 0.037; OS, p = 0.011) (Table 4, Model 1).
Table 4
Multivariable analyses of PFS and OS (Model 1)
Variables
PFS
OS
HR
95% CI
p value
HR
95% CI
p value
Age (years)
  
0.443
  
0.973
  ≤ 65
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 >65
1.177
0.776–1.787
 
0.992
0.634–1.553
 
ECOG PS
  
0.443
  
0.350
 0
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 1
1.164
0.790–1.714
 
1.214
0.808–1.823
 
Clinical stage
  
0.003**
  
0.002**
 IIIB
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 IV
1.807
1.229–2.658
 
1.880
1.260–2.806
 
First-line response
  
0.037*
  
0.011*
 CR/PR
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 SD/PD
1.572
1.027–2.407
 
1.799
1.143–2.831
 
Albumin
  
0.089
   
 Decreased
1.377
0.952–1.991
    
 Normal
Ref.
     
LMR
  
0.025*
  
0.032*
  ≤ 3.73
1.602
1.060–2.420
 
1.621
1.042–2.521
 
 >3.73
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
SUVmax
  
< 0.001***
  
< 0.001***
  ≤ 11.6
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 >11.6
2.110
1.400–3.179
 
2.760
1.789–4.257
 
PFS progression-free survival, OS overall survival, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, CR complete response, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease, LMR lymphocyte-monocyte ratio, SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence intervals. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001

The value of the LMR_SUV score in predicting treatment response and survival

To further discriminate patients with different outcomes, a novel scoring system termed the SUV_LMR score that includes SUVmax and LMR was constructed. The score was categorized as follows: score 0, patients with low SUVmax (≤11.6) and high LMR (> 3.73); score 2, patients with high SUVmax (> 11.6) and low LMR (≤3.73); and score 1, all remaining patients.
First, we evaluated the differences in treatment response among the three subgroups. The patients with a score of 0 had the highest ORR of 88.9%, whereas patients with a score of 2 had the lowest ORR of only 25%. In addition, the ORR of patients with a score of 1 was intermediate, at 59.6%. More importantly, significant inter-group differences in the ORRs were observed (0 vs 1, p = 0.002, 1 vs 2, p < 0.001; and 0 vs 2, p < 0.001) (Table 5).
Table 5
Chemotherapeutic response according to LMR_SUV scores
SUV_LMR score
PR + CR
SD + PD
ORR
Compared
p value
p value
Score 0 (n = 36)
32
4
88.9%
Score 1
0.002**
< 0.001***
   
Score 2
< 0.001***
 
Score 1 (n = 57)
34
23
59.6%
Score 2
< 0.001***
 
Score 2 (n = 56)
14
42
25.0%
   
SUV standardized uptake value, LMR lymphocyte-monocyte ratio, CR complete response, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease, ORR objective response rate. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001
Moreover, we examined the prognostic value of the SUV_LMR score. The median PFS for patients with scores of 0, 1, and 2 was 16.1, 11.1, and 5.8 months, respectively (Fig. 4a, p < 0.001). Differences in PFS according to the SUV_LMR scores were significant (0 vs 1, p < 0.001; 1 vs 2, p = 0.001;0 vs 2, p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for OS. The median OS for patients with scores of 0, 1, and 2 was 26.9, 16.4, and 13.0 months, respectively (Fig. 4b, p < 0.001). The OS stratifications according to the SUV_LMR scores were also significant (0 vs 1, p < 0.001; 1 vs 2, p < 0.001; 0 vs 2, p < 0.001).
To further evaluate the prognostic value of the SUV_LMR score whilst avoiding the effect of SUVmax and LMR on the SUV_LMR score, another multivariable Cox regression model (Model 2) was constructed. The results demonstrated that the SUV_LMR score was independently associated with PFS (p < 0.001) and OS (p < 0.001) (Table 6, Model 2). The patients with a score of 0 exhibited the longest PFS and OS of the subgroups. Patients with a score of 1 (HR: 2.017; 95%CI: 1.233–3.300; p = 0.005) and score of 2 (HR: 3.421; 95%CI: 1.903–6.148; p < 0.001) exhibited significantly decreased PFS compared with that of patients with a score of 0. Similarly, patients with a score of 1 (HR: 2.177; 95%CI: 1.273–3.722; p = 0.004) and score of 2 (HR: 4.573; 95% CI: 2.441–8.569; p < 0.001) also showed significantly worse OS compared with that of patients with a score of 0.
Table 6
Multivariable analyses of PFS and OS (Model 2)
Variables
PFS
OS
HR
95% CI
p value
HR
95% CI
p value
Age (years)
  
0.379
  
0.975
  ≤ 65
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 >65
1.204
0.796–1.824
 
0.993
0.640–1.540
 
ECOG PS
  
0.487
  
0.483
 0
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 1
1.147
0.780–1.686
 
1.154
0.773–1.724
 
Clinical stage
  
0.004**
  
0.004**
 IIIB
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 IV
1.752
1.190–2.578
 
1.802
1.207–2.690
 
First-line response
  
0.035*
  
0.015*
 CR/PR
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 SD/PD
1.576
1.033–2.406
 
1.754
1.117–2.753
 
Albumin
  
0.097
   
 Decreased
1.367
0.945–1.978
    
 Normal
Ref.
     
LMR_SUV
  
< 0.001***
  
< 0.001***
 Score 0
Ref.
  
Ref.
  
 Score 1
2.017
1.233–3.300
0.005**
2.177
1.273–3.722
0.004**
 Score 2
3.421
1.903–6.148
< 0.001***
4.573
2.441–8.569
< 0.001***
PFS progression-free survival, OS overall survival, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, CR complete response, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease, LMR lymphocyte-monocyte ratio, SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence intervals. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001

Discussion

Our retrospective study revealed that pre-treatment SUVmax and LMR were independent factors for predicting treatment response and prognosis in stage IIIB-IV NSCLC patients receiving chemotherapy. More importantly, an innovative scoring system based on SUVmax and LMR was constructed that can serve as an accurate and effective tool for predicting chemotherapeutic response and prognosis.
SUVmax is one of the most important parameters derived from PET that can accurately measure the metabolic activity of tumors and provide valuable prognostic information. Although the cellular and molecular mechanisms are not well known, some studies have reported that SUVmax is closely associated with biological factors that influence cancer proliferation and progression in NSCLC, such as Ki-67 [27, 28] and VEGF [28]. A large prospective study by Vesselle et al. [27] investigated the correlation between Ki-67 expression and tumor FDG uptake in 178 patients with NSCLC. The results showed that SUVmax was positively correlated with Ki-67 scores in tumor tissue, and it is well known that the overexpression of Ki-67 in tumors indicates active proliferative activity and aggressive biological behaviour. In another study on NSCLC, Takenaka et al. [28] assessed the relationship between SUVmax and intratumoral expression of VEGF and demonstrated that SUVmax was significantly higher in patients with high expression of VEGF, which plays an important role in tumor angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis. Above studies revealed that SUVmax could reflect tumor proliferation and angiogenesis, which is related to prognosis. In NSCLC, many studies have demonstrated the prognostic significance of SUVmax [10, 29]. A meta-analysis by Berghmans et al. [29] encompassing 13 studies highlighted tumor SUVmax values as a prognostic factor of NSCLC. In another retrospective study of 315 NSCLC patients, Cerfolio et al. [10] found that patients with SUVmax ≥10 were more likely to have cancer recurrence and shorter survival compared with those of patients with low SUVmax. More importantly, they also concluded that SUVmax was a more powerful independent prognostic factor than TNM stage [10]. Consistent with these findings, we also observed that high SUVmax values (> 11.6) of primary tumor is independently associated with poor PFS and OS. In addition, we also demonstrated that a high SUVmax was a significant predictive marker of poor chemotherapeutic response. The mechanism may be related to the overexpression of p53 in tumor cells, as a previous study confirmed the positive correlation between SUVmax and p53 expression [30], and p53 overexpression has been proved to be significantly correlated with chemotherapy resistance in lung cancer [31]. This may be an underlying mechanism to explain why the high SUVmax is associated with poor chemotherapeutic effects.
Accumulating evidence has demonstrated that systemic inflammation plays a key role in tumorigenesis, progression and metastasis [17]. LMR, one of the simple markers of systemic inflammatory response, has been shown to correlate with clinical outcomes of NSCLC [25, 26]. In a retrospective assessment of 107 patients with advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma who received chemotherapy, Minami et al. showed that a low LMR (< 2.07) could independently predict a poor OS, while NLR could not [25]. In terms of short-term efficacy, their results showed that the high LMR group exhibited a higher response rate to chemotherapy than did the low LMR group (25). Lin et al. also reported that high LMR values (> 4.56) were predictive of a longer PFS and OS in 370 metastatic NSCLC patients receiving chemotherapy [26]. Our data were consistent with these findings, as a low pre-treatment LMR (≤3.73) was a significant predictor of unfavourable chemotherapeutic responses and a poor PFS and OS. The exact mechanisms of these associations currently remain unclear, but there are some hypotheses on this issue. On the one hand, it is well known that lymphocytes, especially cytotoxic T lymphocytes, play a critical role in the antitumor immune response by inducing cytotoxic cell death and suppressing tumor cell proliferation and invasion [32]. A previous study has demonstrated that a low lymphocyte count was associated with a poor DFS in NSCLC patients [33]. On the other hand, circulating monocytes can differentiate into tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) in the tumor microenvironment, and growing evidence suggests that TAMs promote cancer initiation, progression and metastasis by inducing mutagenesis, stimulating angiogenesis, and suppressing anti-tumor immunity [1618]. All the above theories suggested that the LMR can reflect the balance between the anti-tumor immunity of the lymphatic system and the unfavourable tumor-promoting effects of monocytes. A low LMR indicates a relatively decreased lymphocyte count and an increased monocyte count, so it may predict a poor clinical outcome.
To summarize, SUVmax represents the local metabolic status of primary tumor, and LMR reflects the host’s systemic inflammatory response. The comprehensive evaluation of these two factors may be more accurate and effective at predicting the chemotherapeutic response and prognosis. Interestingly, we demonstrated a weak but significant negative correlation between SUVmax and LMR in this study. A similar correlation between SUVmax and hematological parameters was observed in colorectal cancer [34], NSCLC [35] and breast cancer [36]. In a study of colorectal cancer, Xu et al. [34] demonstrated that SUVmax was significantly correlated with LMR and NLR. In addition, in other studies on NSCLC and breast cancer, Jeong et al. [35] and Fujii et al. [36] also demonstrated the correlation between SUVmax and NLR. The results of previous studies may offer some explanations for this correlation. One potential opinion was that inflammatory cells infiltrating the tumor microenvironment, such as neutrophils and macrophages, also consumed FDG, resulting in increased FDG uptake throughout the tumor [37]. Another possible explanation may be related to inflammation-induced angiogenesis. Inflammation promotes hypoxia in the tumor microenvironment and induces angiogenesis by stimulating VEGF secretion [38]. Then, the uptake of FDG will increase significantly during tumor angiogenesis [39]. These analyses shed new insight into the relationship between tumor metabolic activity and the host’s inflammatory response process. Therefore, in present study, we established a scoring system based on the SUVmax and LMR, and demonstrated its value to predict PFS and OS, highlighting its prognostic potential. Patients with baseline SUVmax ≤11.6 along with LMR > 3.73 (score 0) exhibited the longest PFS and OS of the three groups, whereas patients with both pre-treatment SUVmax > 11.6 and LMR ≤3.73 (score 2) showed the worst treatment outcome, with significantly poorer OS and PFS. Another highlight of this study was the association between the SUV_LMR score and first-line chemotherapeutic response. Patients with a score of 0 had the highest ORR among the subgroups, while patients with a score of 2 had the worst ORR. The SUV_LMR score therefore has the potential to predict treatment response and prognosis and may be helpful in selecting appropriate treatment strategies for advanced patients. Patients with a score of 0 appeared to be more sensitive to chemotherapy, so the current platinum-based doublet chemotherapy may be the optimal strategy for them; thus, for these patients, chemotherapy should be implemented as soon as possible. However, for patients with a score of 2, they seemed to be relatively insensitive to chemotherapy, and their prognosis was extremely poor. Therefore, alternative strategies should be considered for these patients, such as molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies.
Some study limitations should be discussed. The study was retrospective and from a single centre, and the number of patients was small. Secondly, selection criteria were limited to stage IIIB-IV NSCLC, and the prognostic impact of the SUV_LMR scores may be differ in those at early disease stages. Finally, the predictive performance of the SUV_LMR score needs further validation in larger prospective studies containing more samples.

Conclusions

Pre-treatment SUVmax and LMR were independent predictive factors of clinical tumor response and prognosis in stage IIIB-IV NSCLC patients who were treated with first-line chemotherapy. More importantly, the SUV_LMR score, which is based on primary tumor metabolic activity and the systemic inflammatory response, provides a promising tool to predict chemosensitivity, recurrence and survival of advanced NSCLC.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.
The ethics committee of Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute approved the study. Also, administrative permissions to access the patients’ clinical data used in our research were granted by the ethical review board. And written informed consent was waived because of its retrospective design.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.CrossRef Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Molina J, Yang P, Cassivi S, Schild S, Adjei A. Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:584–94.CrossRef Molina J, Yang P, Cassivi S, Schild S, Adjei A. Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:584–94.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Goldstraw P, Ball D, Jett JR, Le Chevalier T, Lim E, Nicholson AG, et al. Non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet. 2011;378:1727–40.CrossRef Goldstraw P, Ball D, Jett JR, Le Chevalier T, Lim E, Nicholson AG, et al. Non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet. 2011;378:1727–40.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Shanafelt TD, Loprinzi C, Marks R, Novotny P, Sloan J. Are chemotherapy response rates related to treatment-induced survival prolongations in patients with advanced cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1966–74.CrossRef Shanafelt TD, Loprinzi C, Marks R, Novotny P, Sloan J. Are chemotherapy response rates related to treatment-induced survival prolongations in patients with advanced cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1966–74.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Shepherd F, Crowley J, Van Houtte P, Postmus P, Carney D, Chansky K, et al. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer lung cancer staging project: proposals regarding the clinical staging of small cell lung cancer in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the tumor, node, metastasis classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:1067–77.CrossRef Shepherd F, Crowley J, Van Houtte P, Postmus P, Carney D, Chansky K, et al. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer lung cancer staging project: proposals regarding the clinical staging of small cell lung cancer in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the tumor, node, metastasis classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:1067–77.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Tanoue LT. Staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;29:248–60.CrossRef Tanoue LT. Staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;29:248–60.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646–74.CrossRef Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646–74.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Grootjans W, de Geus-Oei L-F, Troost EGC, Visser EP, Oyen WJG, Bussink J. PET in the management of locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:395–407.CrossRef Grootjans W, de Geus-Oei L-F, Troost EGC, Visser EP, Oyen WJG, Bussink J. PET in the management of locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:395–407.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, Hossein-Foucher C, Buvat I, Castaigne C, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) by the European lung Cancer working party for the IASLC lung Cancer staging project. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:6–12.CrossRef Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, Hossein-Foucher C, Buvat I, Castaigne C, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) by the European lung Cancer working party for the IASLC lung Cancer staging project. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:6–12.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ohja B, Bartolucci AA. The maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography of a non-small cell lung cancer predict stage, recurrence, and survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;130:151–9.CrossRef Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ohja B, Bartolucci AA. The maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography of a non-small cell lung cancer predict stage, recurrence, and survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;130:151–9.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Gonen M, Vincent A, Bains MS, Larson S, et al. Preoperative F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value predicts survival after lung cancer resection. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3255–60.CrossRef Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Gonen M, Vincent A, Bains MS, Larson S, et al. Preoperative F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value predicts survival after lung cancer resection. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3255–60.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Sasaki R, Komaki R, Macapinlac H, Erasmus J, Allen P, Forster K, et al. [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography predicts outcome of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1136–43.CrossRef Sasaki R, Komaki R, Macapinlac H, Erasmus J, Allen P, Forster K, et al. [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography predicts outcome of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1136–43.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Bille A, Okiror L, Skanjeti A, Errico L, Arena V, Penna D, et al. The prognostic significance of maximum standardized uptake value of primary tumor in surgically treated non-small-cell lung cancer patients: analysis of 413 cases. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14:149–56.CrossRef Bille A, Okiror L, Skanjeti A, Errico L, Arena V, Penna D, et al. The prognostic significance of maximum standardized uptake value of primary tumor in surgically treated non-small-cell lung cancer patients: analysis of 413 cases. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14:149–56.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Agarwal M, Brahmanday G, Bajaj SK, Ravikrishnan KP, Wong CY. Revisiting the prognostic value of preoperative 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in early-stage (I & II) non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:691–8.CrossRef Agarwal M, Brahmanday G, Bajaj SK, Ravikrishnan KP, Wong CY. Revisiting the prognostic value of preoperative 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in early-stage (I & II) non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:691–8.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoang JK, Hoagland LF, Coleman RE, Coan AD, Herndon JE 2nd, Patz EF Jr. Prognostic value of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1459–64.CrossRef Hoang JK, Hoagland LF, Coleman RE, Coan AD, Herndon JE 2nd, Patz EF Jr. Prognostic value of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1459–64.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat DeNardo DG, Andreu P, Coussens LM. Interactions between lymphocytes and myeloid cells regulate pro- versus anti-tumor immunity. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2010;29:309–16.CrossRef DeNardo DG, Andreu P, Coussens LM. Interactions between lymphocytes and myeloid cells regulate pro- versus anti-tumor immunity. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2010;29:309–16.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M. Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell. 2010;140:883–99.CrossRef Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M. Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell. 2010;140:883–99.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Qian BZ, Pollard JW. Macrophage diversity enhances tumor progression and metastasis. Cell. 2010;141:39–51.CrossRef Qian BZ, Pollard JW. Macrophage diversity enhances tumor progression and metastasis. Cell. 2010;141:39–51.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Sun Y, Zhang L. The clinical use of pretreatment NLR, PLR, and LMR in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: evidence from a meta-analysis. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:6167–79.CrossRef Sun Y, Zhang L. The clinical use of pretreatment NLR, PLR, and LMR in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: evidence from a meta-analysis. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:6167–79.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Chan JC, Chan DL, Diakos CI, Engel A, Pavlakis N, Gill A, et al. The lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio is a superior predictor of overall survival in comparison to established biomarkers of Resectable colorectal Cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;265:539–46.CrossRef Chan JC, Chan DL, Diakos CI, Engel A, Pavlakis N, Gill A, et al. The lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio is a superior predictor of overall survival in comparison to established biomarkers of Resectable colorectal Cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;265:539–46.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Marin Hernandez C, Pinero Madrona A, Gil Vazquez PJ, Galindo Fernandez PJ, Ruiz Merino G, Alonso Romero JL, et al. Usefulness of lymphocyte-to-monocyte, neutrophil-to-monocyte and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios as prognostic markers in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018;20:476–83.CrossRef Marin Hernandez C, Pinero Madrona A, Gil Vazquez PJ, Galindo Fernandez PJ, Ruiz Merino G, Alonso Romero JL, et al. Usefulness of lymphocyte-to-monocyte, neutrophil-to-monocyte and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios as prognostic markers in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018;20:476–83.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang Y, Hu X, Xu W, Wang H, Huang Y, Che G. Prognostic value of a novel scoring system using inflammatory response biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study. Thorac Cancer. 2019;10:1402–11.CrossRef Wang Y, Hu X, Xu W, Wang H, Huang Y, Che G. Prognostic value of a novel scoring system using inflammatory response biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study. Thorac Cancer. 2019;10:1402–11.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen Y, Wang W, Zhang X, Yu X, Xi K, Wen Y, et al. Prognostic significance of combined preoperative platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in patients undergoing surgery with stage IB non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:5411–22.CrossRef Chen Y, Wang W, Zhang X, Yu X, Xi K, Wen Y, et al. Prognostic significance of combined preoperative platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in patients undergoing surgery with stage IB non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:5411–22.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Guo M, Li W, Li B, Zou B, Wang S, Meng X, et al. Prognostic value of delta inflammatory biomarker-based nomograms in patients with inoperable locally advanced NSCLC. Int Immunopharmacol. 2019;72:395–401.CrossRef Guo M, Li W, Li B, Zou B, Wang S, Meng X, et al. Prognostic value of delta inflammatory biomarker-based nomograms in patients with inoperable locally advanced NSCLC. Int Immunopharmacol. 2019;72:395–401.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Minami S, Ihara S, Komuta K. Pretreatment lymphocyte to monocyte ratio as a prognostic marker for advanced pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10:657–64.CrossRef Minami S, Ihara S, Komuta K. Pretreatment lymphocyte to monocyte ratio as a prognostic marker for advanced pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10:657–64.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Lin GN, Peng JW, Xiao JJ, Liu DY, Xia ZJ. Prognostic impact of circulating monocytes and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio on previously untreated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving platinum-based doublet. Med Oncol. 2014;31:70.CrossRef Lin GN, Peng JW, Xiao JJ, Liu DY, Xia ZJ. Prognostic impact of circulating monocytes and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio on previously untreated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving platinum-based doublet. Med Oncol. 2014;31:70.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Vesselle H, Salskov A, Turcotte E, Wiens L, Schmidt R, Jordan C, et al. Relationship between non-small cell lung cancer FDG uptake at PET, tumor histology, and Ki-67 proliferation index. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:971–8.CrossRef Vesselle H, Salskov A, Turcotte E, Wiens L, Schmidt R, Jordan C, et al. Relationship between non-small cell lung cancer FDG uptake at PET, tumor histology, and Ki-67 proliferation index. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:971–8.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Takenaka T, Yano T, Ito K, Morodomi Y, Miura N, Kawano D, et al. Biological significance of the maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography in non-small cell lung cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:688–92.CrossRef Takenaka T, Yano T, Ito K, Morodomi Y, Miura N, Kawano D, et al. Biological significance of the maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography in non-small cell lung cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:688–92.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Lepage C, Rachet B, Jooste V, Faivre J, Coleman MP. Continuing rapid increase in esophageal adenocarcinoma in England and Wales. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2694–9.CrossRef Lepage C, Rachet B, Jooste V, Faivre J, Coleman MP. Continuing rapid increase in esophageal adenocarcinoma in England and Wales. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2694–9.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Bai L, Guo C, Wang J, Liu X, Li Y, Li M, et al. 18F-fludrodeoxyglucose maximal standardized uptake value and metabolic tumor burden are associated with major chemotherapy-related tumor markers in NSCLC patients. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:6315–24.CrossRef Bai L, Guo C, Wang J, Liu X, Li Y, Li M, et al. 18F-fludrodeoxyglucose maximal standardized uptake value and metabolic tumor burden are associated with major chemotherapy-related tumor markers in NSCLC patients. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:6315–24.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Breen L, Heenan M, Amberger-Murphy V, Clynes M. Investigation of the role of p53 in chemotherapy resistance of lung cancer cell lines. Anticancer Res. 2007;27:1361–4.PubMed Breen L, Heenan M, Amberger-Murphy V, Clynes M. Investigation of the role of p53 in chemotherapy resistance of lung cancer cell lines. Anticancer Res. 2007;27:1361–4.PubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Hung K, Hayashi R, Lafond-Walker A, Lowenstein C, Pardoll D, Levitsky H. The Central Role of CD4+ T Cells in the Antitumor Immune Response. J Exp Med. 1998;188:2357–68.CrossRef Hung K, Hayashi R, Lafond-Walker A, Lowenstein C, Pardoll D, Levitsky H. The Central Role of CD4+ T Cells in the Antitumor Immune Response. J Exp Med. 1998;188:2357–68.CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang J, Huang SH, Li H, Li Y, Chen XL, Zhang WQ, et al. Preoperative lymphocyte count is a favorable prognostic factor of disease-free survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. Med Oncol. 2013;30:352.CrossRef Zhang J, Huang SH, Li H, Li Y, Chen XL, Zhang WQ, et al. Preoperative lymphocyte count is a favorable prognostic factor of disease-free survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. Med Oncol. 2013;30:352.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Xu J, Li Y, Hu S, Lu L, Gao Z, Yuan H. The significant value of predicting prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer using (18)F-FDG PET metabolic parameters of primary tumors and hematological parameters. Ann Nucl Med. 2019;33:32–8.CrossRef Xu J, Li Y, Hu S, Lu L, Gao Z, Yuan H. The significant value of predicting prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer using (18)F-FDG PET metabolic parameters of primary tumors and hematological parameters. Ann Nucl Med. 2019;33:32–8.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Jeong E, Hyun SH, Moon SH, Cho YS, Kim B-T, Lee K-H. Relation between tumor FDG uptake and hematologic prognostic indicators in stage I lung cancer patients following curative resection. Medicine. 2017;96:e5935.CrossRef Jeong E, Hyun SH, Moon SH, Cho YS, Kim B-T, Lee K-H. Relation between tumor FDG uptake and hematologic prognostic indicators in stage I lung cancer patients following curative resection. Medicine. 2017;96:e5935.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Fujii T, Yanai K, Tokuda S, Nakazawa Y, Kurozumi S, Obayashi S, et al. Relationship between FDG uptake and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in patients with invasive ductal breast Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2018;38:4927–31.CrossRef Fujii T, Yanai K, Tokuda S, Nakazawa Y, Kurozumi S, Obayashi S, et al. Relationship between FDG uptake and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in patients with invasive ductal breast Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2018;38:4927–31.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Kubota R, Yamada S, Kubota K, Ishiwata K, Tamahashi N, Ido T. Intratumoral distribution of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in vivo: high accumulation in macrophages and granulation tissues studied by microautoradiography. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1972–80.PubMed Kubota R, Yamada S, Kubota K, Ishiwata K, Tamahashi N, Ido T. Intratumoral distribution of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in vivo: high accumulation in macrophages and granulation tissues studied by microautoradiography. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1972–80.PubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Kwilas A, Donahue R, Tsang K, Hodge J. Immune consequences of tyrosine kinase inhibitors that synergize with Cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Cell Microenviron. 2015;2:e677.PubMedPubMedCentral Kwilas A, Donahue R, Tsang K, Hodge J. Immune consequences of tyrosine kinase inhibitors that synergize with Cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Cell Microenviron. 2015;2:e677.PubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Kurdziel K, Lindenberg L, Choyke P. Oncologic angiogenesis imaging in the clinic: how and why? Imaging Med. 2011;3:445–57.CrossRef Kurdziel K, Lindenberg L, Choyke P. Oncologic angiogenesis imaging in the clinic: how and why? Imaging Med. 2011;3:445–57.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Combined prognostic value of the SUVmax derived from FDG-PET and the lymphocyte-monocyte ratio in patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy
verfasst von
Kewei Zhao
Chunsheng Wang
Fang Shi
Yong Huang
Li Ma
Minghuan Li
Yipeng Song
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2021
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Cancer / Ausgabe 1/2021
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-07784-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

BMC Cancer 1/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Alphablocker schützt vor Miktionsproblemen nach der Biopsie

16.05.2024 alpha-1-Rezeptorantagonisten Nachrichten

Nach einer Prostatabiopsie treten häufig Probleme beim Wasserlassen auf. Ob sich das durch den periinterventionellen Einsatz von Alphablockern verhindern lässt, haben australische Mediziner im Zuge einer Metaanalyse untersucht.

Antikörper-Wirkstoff-Konjugat hält solide Tumoren in Schach

16.05.2024 Zielgerichtete Therapie Nachrichten

Trastuzumab deruxtecan scheint auch jenseits von Lungenkrebs gut gegen solide Tumoren mit HER2-Mutationen zu wirken. Dafür sprechen die Daten einer offenen Pan-Tumor-Studie.

Mammakarzinom: Senken Statine das krebsbedingte Sterberisiko?

15.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

Frauen mit lokalem oder metastasiertem Brustkrebs, die Statine einnehmen, haben eine niedrigere krebsspezifische Mortalität als Patientinnen, die dies nicht tun, legen neue Daten aus den USA nahe.

Labor, CT-Anthropometrie zeigen Risiko für Pankreaskrebs

13.05.2024 Pankreaskarzinom Nachrichten

Gerade bei aggressiven Malignomen wie dem duktalen Adenokarzinom des Pankreas könnte Früherkennung die Therapiechancen verbessern. Noch jedoch klafft hier eine Lücke. Ein Studienteam hat einen Weg gesucht, sie zu schließen.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.