Practical consensus recommendations regarding role of postmastectomy radiation therapy

Prognostic implications of the peripheral platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in predicting pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The inflammatory response is extremely important in tumor progression, and it is very difficult to identify prognostic indicators for neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer patients. The aim of this study was to mine the potential prognostic significance of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline- or taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).

METHODS

A total of 67 women diagnosed with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant therapy were enrolled in the study. Before starting NACT, the PLR and NLR were calculated. The optimal cutoff value was calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses, which indicated that 106.3 and 2.464 were the best cutoff values for the PLR and NLR, respectively. The optimal cutoff values for them were used to divide patients into low and high NLR groups and low and high PLR groups. Independent prognostic biomarkers and the value of PLR and NLR were assessed. The connection between the NLR/PLR and pathologic complete response (pCR), together with other clinical/pathological factors was evaluated.

RESULTS

Logistic regression model analyses revealed that patients with a high PLR correlated remarkably with better pCR than those with a low PLR. The results indicated that by using the cutoff value of 106.3, PLR had prognostic significance. However, there was no significant difference in NLR if analyzed separately. By combining PLR and NLR, the NLRhigh and PLRhigh subgroups achieved a significantly higher rate of pCR than the NLRIow/PLRIow subgroup [odds ratio (OR) 0.153, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.068 to 0.876, P=0.008]. Therefore, the combination of NLRhigh/PLRhigh was an independent prognostic factor different from others, such as PLR, Ki-67, and chemotherapy regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

The PLR may serve as a potential marker of the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer, enabling oncologists to intervene earlier. Peripheral blood NLR and PLR can reflect the immune status of patients. Indicating that an immunogenic phenotype is a good predictor of chemotherapy response and that combined studies can better identify immunophenotypes in patients.

A quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines on breast cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Background

Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer in women. The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on breast cancer has been shown to be heterogeneous. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of breast cancer CPGs published in years 2018-2020, using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.

Methods

We searched Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) as well as websites of guideline organizations for CPGs on breast cancer published between 2018 and 2020. We used the RIGHT checklist to evaluate the reporting quality of the included guidelines by assessing whether the CPGs adhered to each item of the checklist and calculated the proportions of appropriately reported RIGHT checklist items. We also presented the adherence reporting rates for each guideline and the mean rates for each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist.

Results

A total of 45 guidelines were included. Eighteen (40.0%) guidelines had an overall reporting rate below 50% and only three (6.7%) reported more than 80% of the items. The domains “Basic information” and “Background” had the highest reporting rates (75.9% and 62.5%, respectively). The mean reporting rates of the domains “Evidence”, “Recommendation”, “Review and quality assurance”, “Funding and declaration and management of interests” and “Other information” were 42.7%, 53.0%, 33.3%, 45.0%, and 44.4%, respectively.

Conclusions

The reporting quality varied among guidelines for breast cancer, showing the need for improvement in reporting the contents. Guideline developers should pay more attention to reporting the evidence, review and quality assurance, and funding and declaration and management of interests in future.