Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictive factor of complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

  • Javier Cuello-López ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Javier Cuello-López, Ana Fidalgo-Zapata, Laura López-Agudelo

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    jamacl@hotmail.com

    Affiliation Clinical Oncology Group, Fundación Colombiana de Cancerología-Clínica Vida, Medellín, Colombia

    ⨯
  • Ana Fidalgo-Zapata ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Javier Cuello-López, Ana Fidalgo-Zapata, Laura López-Agudelo

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Breast Surgeon Fellowship Program, School of Medicine, CES University, Medellín, Colombia

    ⨯
  • Laura López-Agudelo ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Javier Cuello-López, Ana Fidalgo-Zapata, Laura López-Agudelo

    Roles Data curation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Fundación Colombiana de Cancerología-Clínica Vida, Medellín, Colombia

    ⨯
  • Elsa Vásquez-Trespalacios

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Validation

    Affiliation Department of Clinical Epidemiology, School of Medicine, CES University, Medellín, Colombia

    ⨯

Abstract

Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients is of prognostic value in determining short- and mid-term outcomes. Inflammatory biomarkers, such as platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), have been proposed as predictive factors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Currently, there are no studies in Colombian patients reporting the role of inflammatory biomarkers as response predictors in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, in this study we performed a cross-sectional study and analyzed the association between inflammatory biomarkers and pCR (pathological complete response) in patients diagnosed with breast cancer–of different molecular subtypes- and treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A total of 288 patients were included in the study, with a median age of 51 years old. Disease was locally advanced in 83% of the participants, and 77.7% had compromised lymph nodes. In our cohort, the most frequent tumor molecular subtype was luminal B/Her2- (27.8%) followed by triple negative [TN] (21.5%), luminal B/Her2+ (19.8%), Her2-enriched (16%) and luminal A (13.5%). PLR was not associated with age, menopausal status, baseline tumor size, histologic grade, axillary lymph node involvement, disease stage, estrogen receptor status, or Ki67; however, complete pathological response was significantly higher in the low PLR group (PLR<150) compared with the high PLR group (35.1% Vs. 22.2%, p = 0.03). In addition, Her2-enriched tumors achieved the highest pCR rates (65%), followed by TN (34%) tumors. Our results suggest that breast cancer patients with low platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR <150), treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy achieve higher complete pathological response, independently of primary tumor molecular subtype.

Citation: Cuello-López J, Fidalgo-Zapata A, López-Agudelo L, Vásquez-Trespalacios E (2018) Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictive factor of complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. PLoS ONE 13(11): e0207224. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207224

Editor: Tomi F. Akinyemiju, University of Kentucky, UNITED STATES

Received: May 9, 2018; Accepted: October 27, 2018; Published: November 14, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Cuello-López et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients is of prognostic value in determining short-, and mid-term outcomes, and is one of the main objectives in current ongoing studies assessing the potential benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy [1–3].

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended inclusion of pathologic complete response (pCR) as a main requirement for the accelerated approval of drugs used for neoadjuvant therapy in early-stage, high-risk breast cancer [4, 5]. However, achieving a pCR after neoadjuvant therapy is associated with several pathologic and biologic factors such as histologic grade, hormone receptor status, and expression of Her2 and Ki67, among others. Among them, while luminal A tumors have been reported to be the least likely to achieve pCR after neoadjuvant therapy, followed by luminal B tumors–which show a moderate response-, Her2-enriched and TN tumors exhibit the highest pCR rates [6, 7].

It is well recognized that systemic inflammation plays an important role in promoting tumor progression. Many studies have shown that elevated inflammatory markers, such as neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR), are associated with poor prognosis in patients with different solid malignancies. Also NLR and PLR may be related to chemosensitivity [8–14].

Currently, there are no studies from Colombia reporting the role of inflammatory biomarkers (NLR, PLR, etc) as response predictors in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, in this study we have analyzed the association between biomarkers (NLR, PLR) and pCR in patients diagnosed with breast cancer of different molecular subtypes and treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Materials and methods

Patients and study design

This study was approved by Institutional Ethics Committee of the Fundación Colombiana de Cancerologia-Clínica Vida. All data were fully anonymized before we accessed them. The Institutional Ethics Committee waived the requirement for informed consent.

This was a cross-sectional study in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy at our institution, Fundación Colombiana de Cancerología-Clínica Vida, in Medellín, Colombia between January 2013 and December 2016. Patient data were collected from electronic databases.

Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy of anthracycline and/or taxanes sequential regimens were included in this study. Patients with Her2-expressing tumors were neoadjuvantly-treated with trastuzumab. Patients not included in the study were those with bilateral breast cancer, inflammatory breast carcinoma; those that had received <3 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy, documented acute infectious process, pregnancy, pre-operative diagnosis of chronic disease including chronic hepatic disease, terminal renal disease, or inflammatory diseases such as systemic lupus erythematous. Patients with inadequate disease staging were also excluded from the study.

Variables

Patients (variables: age, cell counts, tumor characteristics) data were collected and analyzed from hemograms performed (less than 1 month) before initiating neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) was calculated as the ratio of the absolute platelet count to absolute lymphocyte count. According to previous studies, a value of PLR of 150 was established as a cut-off point to discriminate two groups: low PLR (<150) and high PLR (>150) [12, 15, 16].

Menopausal status was defined by any of the following criteria: age ≥ 60 years, bilateral oophorectomy, amenorrhea ≥ 1 year (in the absence of chemotherapy, tamoxifen, or ovarian suppression), or levels of FSH, LH or estradiol in the reported ranges for post-menopausal status.

Expression of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Depending on the case, Her2 expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry or fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Her2 was considered positive by immunohistochemistry for all 3+ cases, or if expression of Her2 was at least two-fold compared to expression of CEP17 in tumor cells [17].

Intrinsic subtypes were classified as follows: luminal A (ER positive, PR positive, Her2 negative, and Ki67<20%); luminal B- (ER positive, PR positive or negative, Her2 negative, Ki67 ≥20%); luminal B+ (ER positive, PR positive or negative, Her2 positive, independently of Ki67 value); Her2-enriched (ER negative, PR negative, Her2 positive, independently of Ki67 value); and triple negative (ER negative, PR negative, Her2 negative, independently of Ki67 value) [18].

Pathological complete response was defined as the absence of invasive disease in the breast and axilla (ypT0ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0).

Statistical analysis

The main purpose of this study was to assess the role of PLR before neoadjuvant therapy as a potential predictive marker of pathological response in breast cancer patients with operable disease. The association between PLR and the clinicopathologic variables was assessed by Chi-square and Fisher tests.

Data were analyzed using SPSS software (Windows version 21). Quantitative variables are shown as mean or median with their corresponding dispersion measures according to the variables distribution. Qualitative variables were represented as percentages. Comparison of averages was done by Student’s t-test for independent samples, or by the Mann-Whitney U-test, as required. Groups were compared by means of Chi-square and Fisher test for categorical variables, while ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis were used for comparison among groups of continuous variables (depending on the distribution of the continuous variables). Statistical significance is achieved if p <0.05.

Results

A total of 288 patients were included in this study. The median age was 51 years (range 27–85 years old), being 58% of the patients between 40–59 years of age. Disease was locally advanced in 239 (83%) patients (21,2% IIB, 25% IIIA, 32% IIIB, and 4,8% IIIC), and most patients, 224 of 288 (77.7%), presented compromised lymph nodes (N1-N3). Tumor subtypes in our population were distributed as follows: 13.5% luminal A tumors, 27.8% luminal B/Her2 negative, 19.8% luminal B/Her2 positive, 21.5% TN, and 16% Her2-enriched (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207224.t001

In this study, 89 (30.9%) patients achieved pathological complete response. Tumor subtypes with highest response rates were Her2-enriched (65%) and TN (34%).

PLR was calculated for 272 patients and using a PLR value cut-off point of 150, the group was dichotomized into high (PLR>150) and low (PLR<150). PLR ranged between 50.84 and 1437.5 (mean: 146.05; median: 128.1; standard deviation: 109.38). The high PLR group included 90 patients (33%), and 182 patients (67%) formed the low PLR group (Table 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Patient characteristics by PLR prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207224.t002

High PLR values were significantly associated with PR expression (p = 0.008). Furthermore, in Her2 positive cases low PLR values were more frequently found than high PLR (p<0.001). In the subgroup analysis, Her2-enriched, which are related to higher pCR, were associated to a greater extent with low PLR. Because of this reason, we performed a multivariate analysis in order to rule out Her2 status as a confusion variable in relation to PLR and pCR. The results of this analysis support PLR as an independent predictive factor of pCR, independent of Her2 status (Table 3). PLR levels were not associated with age, menopausal status, baseline tumor size, histologic grade, axillary lymph node involvement, disease stage, estrogen receptor status, or Ki67. Pathological complete response was significantly higher in the low PLR group compared with the high PLR group (35.1% Vs. 22.2%, p = 0.03)

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Association between PLR and pCR by Her2 status.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207224.t003

Discussion

Complete pathological response is a strong prognostic factor in breast cancer patients[7]. Recent studies in the neoadjuvant setting have included pCR as a primary objective to predict long-term clinical outcomes such as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) [1, 19]. This has been observed mainly for the aggressive Her2 positive (non-luminal) and TN breast cancers [1, 3].

In this study, pCR was 30.9%; being comparable to previously reported studies based on anthracycline and taxane-based regimens, which reported pCR rates ranging from 20 to 40% [3]. Furthermore, pCR is associated with morphologic and biologic tumor attributes, such as hormone receptor status, and Her2 receptor status, among others.

Recently, Xiaoxian et al, reported that patients with Her2-enriched and TN tumors achieve pCR rates of 58.2% and 47.4% respectively, considerably higher than those achieved by luminal tumors (27.8%) [20]. In agreement with those results, our study also shows that Her2-enriched tumors achieved the highest pCR rates (65%), followed by TN (34%) tumors.

PLR ratio and clinicopathologic factors

Previous studies have described a role for platelets in cancer growth and progression, by releasing VEGF-A and thus activating angiogenesis, and by their interaction with inflammatory mediators such as interleukins and myeloid metalloproteins [21, 22]. This has prompted multiple studies assessing the prognostic value of platelet counts and ratio to other immune cells -including lymphocytes and neutrophils- in the context of breast cancer [11, 13, 14].

The study by Asano et al. in a Japanese population, found an association between a low PLR ratio (cut-off: PLR <150), age (> 56 years) and postmenopausal status (p = <0.001) [15]. Krenn-Pilko, et al, showed that high PLR (cut-off: PLR > 292) correlated with lymph node involvement and high tumor grade (p = <0.05), while it was not found to be associated with other clinicopathologic variables [10]. On another hand, the study by Koh et al. reported an association of high PLR (cut-off: PLR > 215) with age (> 50 years, p = <0.01) and tumor size (>5cm, p = <0.01), while no association was found with lymph node involvement or tumor grade (p = 0.091 and p = 0.06, respectively) [9].

In this study, PLR of Colombian patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy was not associated with clinicopathologic features including age (p = 0.611), menopausal status (p = 0.209), tumor grade (p = 0.229), tumor size (p = 0.622), lymph node involvement (p = 0.680), and stage (p = 0.570). Altogether, studies by others and us suggest that disease heterogeneity and population differences may have an effect on the association of PLR with clinicopathologic variables.

PLR and pathological complete response

In 2011, Hanahan and Weinberg [23] proposed tumor-promoting inflammation as an enabling characteristic for cancer growth. Furthermore, by analyzing hemogram data (neutrophil lymphocyte, monocyte, and platelet count), multiple studies have reported the role of the immune response as a prognostic factor of solid tumor progression [24–27].

Tumor cells have been shown to induce synthesis of platelet stimulating factors that favor growth, invasion and metastasis of primary tumors by several mechanisms. Thus, peripheral blood platelet counts could be an indirect indicator of tumor activity [10, 28]. On the other hand, detection of high numbers of peripheral blood lymphocytes with antitumor activity–particularly CD8+ T cells- would be an indicator of tumor suppression activity. Thus, these data suggest that patients with low PLR would have high antitumor activity, better prognosis, and better chemotherapy response.

In the study by Asano and colleagues, PLR was reported as a predictive and prognostic biomarker in a cohort of triple negative breast cancer patients in the neoadjuvant setting, since patients with low PLR exhibited higher rates of pCR, DFS, and OS [16]. Rafee, et al. reproduced these observations a smaller cohort of breast cancer patients in which high PLR (≥138.19) was independently associated with poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy [12]. In agreement with those studies, our results showed that PLR was associated with pCR, being patients with low PLR (<150) the ones achieving higher rates of pCR (35.1% Vs. 22.2%, p = 0.03). Altogether, these data support the role of PLR as a predictive variable of pCR that is independent of tumor molecular subtype.

It has been proposed that tumors with greater neoantigen synthesis–such as TN and Her2-positive- may achieve a higher immune anti-tumor response by increasing numbers of peripheral lymphocytes, and thus potentiating the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This is supported by studies reporting tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) as predictive biomarker of cPR in the neoadjuvant setting, especially in early-stage Her2-positive and TN tumors. In addition, TILs are of prognostic value, since high TILs number associates with improved overall survival, strongly supports the notion that activation of the immune system is of critical importance for survival outcome [20, 29–39].

In summary, Breast cancer patients with low platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR <150) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy achieved a higher complete pathological response, independently of tumor molecular subtype.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Results of crosstabs between overall variables and PLR index.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207224.s001

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Katherine Drews-Elger for critically reading this manuscript and her helpful suggestions.

References

  1. 1. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72. Epub 2014/02/18. pmid:24529560.
  2. 2. Esserman LJ, Berry DA, DeMichele A, Carey L, Davis SE, Buxton M, et al. Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL—CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30(26):3242–9. Epub 2012/06/01. pmid:22649152; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3434983.
  3. 3. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30(15):1796–804. pmid:22508812.
  4. 4. Bossuyt V, Provenzano E, Symmans WF, Boughey JC, Coles C, Curigliano G, et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 2015. Epub 2015/05/29. pmid:26019189.
  5. 5. Esserman LJ, Woodcock J. Accelerating identification and regulatory approval of investigational cancer drugs. Jama. 2011;306(23):2608–9. Epub 2011/12/22. pmid:22187281.
  6. 6. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, Ibrahim N, Cristofanilli M, Anderson K, et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2005;11(16):5678–85. Epub 2005/08/24. pmid:16115903.
  7. 7. Viale G. Characterization and clinical impact of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast. 2013;22 Suppl 2:S88–91. pmid:24074800.
  8. 8. Xu J, Ni C, Ma C, Zhang L, Jing X, Li C, et al. Association of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and platelet/lymphocyte ratio with ER and PR in breast cancer patients and their changes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clinical & translational oncology: official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico. 2017;19(8):989–96. Epub 2017/03/02. pmid:28247194.
  9. 9. Koh C, Bhoo-Pathy N, Ng K, Jabir R, Tan G, See M, et al. Utility of pre-treatment neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio and platelet–lymphocyte ratio as prognostic factors in breast cancer. British journal of cancer. 2015;113(1):150–8. pmid:26022929
  10. 10. Krenn-Pilko S, Langsenlehner U, Thurner EM, Stojakovic T, Pichler M, Gerger A, et al. The elevated preoperative platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. British journal of cancer. 2014;110(10):2524–30. pmid:24675383; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4021515.
  11. 11. Okuturlar Y, Gunaldi M, Tiken EE, Oztosun B, Inan YO, Ercan T, et al. Utility of peripheral blood parameters in predicting breast cancer risk. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(6):2409–12. pmid:25824773.
  12. 12. Rafee S, McHugh D, Greally M, Ayodele O, Keegan N, Lim M, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as predictive biomarkers of pathologic complete response (pCR) in neoadjuvant breast cancer: an Irish Clinical Oncology Group study (ICORG 16–20). Annals of Oncology. 2016;27(suppl 6):1538P.
  13. 13. Templeton AJ, Ace O, McNamara MG, Al-Mubarak M, Vera-Badillo FE, Hermanns T, et al. Prognostic role of platelet to lymphocyte ratio in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2014;23(7):1204–12. pmid:24793958.
  14. 14. Zhu Y, Si W, Sun Q, Qin B, Zhao W, Yang J. Platelet-lymphocyte ratio acts as an indicator of poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2016.
  15. 15. Asano Y, Kashiwagi S, Onoda N, Noda S, Kawajiri H, Takashima T, et al. Predictive Value of Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio for Efficacy of Preoperative Chemotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Annals of surgical oncology. 2015. Epub 2015/10/30. pmid:26511266.
  16. 16. Asano Y, Kashiwagi S, Onoda N, Noda S, Kawajiri H, Takashima T, et al. Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio as a Useful Predictor of the Therapeutic Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer. PloS one. 2016;11(7):e0153459. Epub 2016/07/30. pmid:27472762; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4966926.
  17. 17. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Mamounas EP, Cameron D, Carey LA, Cristofanilli M, et al. Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer. Annals of surgical oncology. 2012;19(5):1508–16. pmid:22193884.
  18. 18. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thurlimann B, et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 2013;24(9):2206–23. pmid:23917950; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3755334.
  19. 19. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, Rajan R, Kuerer H, Valero V, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2007;25(28):4414–22. pmid:17785706.
  20. 20. Li XB, Krishnamurti U, Bhattarai S, Klimov S, Reid MD, O'Regan R, et al. Biomarkers Predicting Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer. American journal of clinical pathology. 2016;145(6):871–8. pmid:27298399.
  21. 21. Benoy I, Salgado R, Colpaert C, Weytjens R, Vermeulen PB, Dirix LY. Serum interleukin 6, plasma VEGF, serum VEGF, and VEGF platelet load in breast cancer patients. Clinical breast cancer. 2002;2(4):311–5. pmid:11899364.
  22. 22. Klinger MH, Jelkmann W. Role of blood platelets in infection and inflammation. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2002;22(9):913–22. pmid:12396713.
  23. 23. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74. pmid:21376230.
  24. 24. Chua W, Charles KA, Baracos VE, Clarke SJ. Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio predicts chemotherapy outcomes in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. British journal of cancer. 2011;104(8):1288–95. Epub 2011/03/31. pmid:21448173; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3078587.
  25. 25. Ohno Y, Nakashima J, Ohori M, Hatano T, Tachibana M. Pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as an independent predictor of recurrence in patients with nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma. The Journal of urology. 2010;184(3):873–8. Epub 2010/07/21. pmid:20643463.
  26. 26. Schmidt H, Suciu S, Punt CJ, Gore M, Kruit W, Patel P, et al. Pretreatment levels of peripheral neutrophils and leukocytes as independent predictors of overall survival in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage IV Melanoma: results of the EORTC 18951 Biochemotherapy Trial. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2007;25(12):1562–9. Epub 2007/04/20. pmid:17443000.
  27. 27. Azab B, Bhatt VR, Phookan J, Murukutla S, Kohn N, Terjanian T, et al. Usefulness of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in predicting short- and long-term mortality in breast cancer patients. Annals of surgical oncology. 2012;19(1):217–24. Epub 2011/06/04. pmid:21638095.
  28. 28. Seretis C, Seretis F, Lagoudianakis E, Politou M, Gemenetzis G, Salemis NS. Enhancing the accuracy of platelet to lymphocyte ratio after adjustment for large platelet count: a pilot study in breast cancer patients. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:653608. pmid:23304480; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3532869.
  29. 29. Savas P, Salgado R, Denkert C, Sotiriou C, Darcy PK, Smyth MJ, et al. Clinical relevance of host immunity in breast cancer: from TILs to the clinic. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(4):228–41. pmid:26667975.
  30. 30. Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Brase JC, Sinn BV, Gade S, Kronenwett R, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without carboplatin in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive and triple-negative primary breast cancers. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2015;33(9):983–91. pmid:25534375.
  31. 31. West NR, Milne K, Truong PT, Macpherson N, Nelson BH, Watson PH. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes predict response to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. Breast cancer research: BCR. 2011;13(6):R126. pmid:22151962; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3326568.
  32. 32. Avci N, Deligonul A, Tolunay S, Cubukcu E, Fatih Olmez O, Altmisdortoglu O, et al. Prognostic impact of tumor lymphocytic infiltrates in patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Journal of BUON: official journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology. 2015;20(4):994–1000. pmid:26416041.
  33. 33. Castaneda CA, Mittendorf E, Casavilca S, Wu Y, Castillo M, Arboleda P, et al. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in triple negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. World journal of clinical oncology. 2016;7(5):387–94. pmid:27777881; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5056330.
  34. 34. Garcia-Teijido P, Cabal ML, Fernandez IP, Perez YF. Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Triple Negative Breast Cancer: The Future of Immune Targeting. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2016;10(Suppl 1):31–9. pmid:27081325; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4822722.
  35. 35. Jung YY, Hyun CL, Jin MS, Park IA, Chung YR, Shim B, et al. Histomorphological Factors Predicting the Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19(3):261–7. pmid:27721875; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5053310.
  36. 36. Salgado R, Denkert C, Campbell C, Savas P, Nuciforo P, Aura C, et al. Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Associations With Pathological Complete Response and Event-Free Survival in HER2-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer Treated With Lapatinib and Trastuzumab: A Secondary Analysis of the NeoALTTO Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(4):448–54. pmid:26181252.
  37. 37. Tung NM, Winer EP. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and response to platinum in triple-negative breast cancer. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2015;33(9):969–71. pmid:25559817.
  38. 38. Yu X, Zhang Z, Wang Z, Wu P, Qiu F, Huang J. Prognostic and predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical & translational oncology: official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico. 2016;18(5):497–506. pmid:26459255; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4823351.
  39. 39. Salgado R, Denkert C, Demaria S, Sirtaine N, Klauschen F, Pruneri G, et al. The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group 2014. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 2015;26(2):259–71.