Abstract
Some doubts were generated during the reading of nomograms based on inflammatory biomarkers for preoperatively predicting tumor grade and microvascular invasion in stage I/II hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We would like to highlight and discuss with authors. First, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and derived NLR (dNLR) should not be entered into multivariate analysis simultaneously. Second, authors should clarify how the cutoffs of these variables including lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR), dNLR, age and tumor size were set. We insist that the type of variables should be consistent when we carry out the analysis and establish the nomogram. Last, we have to point out that Li et al.’s (Biosci. Rep. (2018), 38) study failed to validate nomograms using an independent dataset.
Keywords: HCC, microvascular invasion, nomogram
Dear editor,
We read with great interest in the recent paper regarding nomograms based on inflammatory biomarkers for preoperatively predicting tumor grade and microvascular invasion in stage I/II hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [1]. The nomogram for microvascular invasion plays a pivotal role in clinical decision-making. As we know, microvascular invasion is an extremely important independent risk factor for postoperative recurrence of HCC [2]. Microvascular invasion can not only help clinicians to develop therapeutic schedules after surgery, but also preoperatively guide surgeons on whether to perform liver transplantation beyond Milan Criteria, anatomical liver resection and widening of the surgical margin [3–6]. However, some doubts were generated during the process of reading that we would like to highlight and discuss with authors.
First of all, about neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and derived NLR (dNLR). We note that dNLR is composed of neutrophils count divided by white cells count minus neutrophils count. The latter, mixture of monocytes and lymphocytes, is broadly similar to the lymphocytes count. Therefore, dNLR is an alternative for NLR especially when we are not able to get access to lymphocytes count because usually neutrophils and white cells counts are available in clinical database [7]. What is more, studies show that dNLR has similar or inferior prognostic value to the NLR [7,8]. Therefore, it is recommended to choose either one of them to avoid an interaction effect when we analyze the data through multivariate logistic regression [9,10]. However, in Li et al.’s [1] study, NLR and dNLR are entered into multivariate analysis simultaneously. They concluded that not NLR but dNLR is the independent factor of microvascular invasion [1]. We feel that the conclusion of this study should be interpreted with some caution.
Second, about the binary variables in nomograms including lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR), dNLR, age and tumor size. It is of note that these variables are analyzed as continuous variables through univariate and multivariate regression. However, these continuous variables were turned into binary variables in nomograms without explanation. Authors should clarify how the cutoffs of these variables were set. In my opinion, it is a wise choice to keep continuous variables in nomograms to avoid the massive information loss just like these papers [11,12]. We insist that the type of variables should be consistent when we carry out the analysis and establish the nomogram.
Last, we have to point out that Li et al.’s [1] study failed to validate nomograms using an independent dataset. The validation could help to avoid potential interobserver variability [13]. Also, the nomograms are based on the data from a single center. Thus, we could not conclude whether the nomograms work in other institutes.
In conclusion, the present study established practical nomograms for preoperatively predicting tumor grade and microvascular invasion. We hope that the authors can respond to our doubts and this will promote the predictive models.
Abbreviations
- dNLR
derived neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio
- HCC
hepatocellular carcinoma
- NLR
neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio
Competing Interests
The authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with the manuscript.
References
- 1.Li P., Huang W., Wang F., Ke Y.F., Gao L., Shi K.Q. et al. (2018) Nomograms based on inflammatory biomarkers for predicting tumor grade and micro-vascular invasion in stage I/II hepatocellular carcinoma. Biosci. Rep. 38, 6. 10.1042/BSR20180464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Zhou J., Sun H.C., Wang Z., Cong W.M., Wang J.H., Zeng M.S. et al. (2018) Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of primary liver cancer in China (2017 edition). Liver Cancer 7, 235–260 10.1159/000488035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Han J., Li Z.L., Xing H., Wu H., Zhu P., Lau W.Y. et al. (2019) The impact of resection margin and microvascular invasion on long-term prognosis after curative resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: a multi-institutional study. HPB (Oxford) 21, 962–971 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mazzaferro V., Llovet J.M., Miceli R., Bhoori S., Schiavo M., Mariani L. et al. (2009) Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol. 10, 35–43 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70284-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ye J.Z., Chen J.Z., Li Z.H., Bai T., Chen J., Zhu S.L. et al. (2017) Efficacy of postoperative adjuvant transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with microvascular invasion. World J. Gastroenterol. 23, 7415–7424 10.3748/wjg.v23.i41.7415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Zhao H., Chen C., Gu S., Yan X., Jia W., Mao L. et al. (2017) Anatomical versus non-anatomical resection for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma without macroscopic vascular invasion: A propensity score matching analysis. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 32, 870–878 10.1111/jgh.13603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Proctor M.J., McMillan D.C., Morrison D.S., Fletcher C.D., Horgan P.G.and Clarke S.J. (2012) A derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts survival in patients with cancer. Br. J. Cancer 107, 695–699 10.1038/bjc.2012.292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Absenger G., Szkandera J., Pichler M., Stotz M., Arminger F., Weissmueller M. et al. (2013) A derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts clinical outcome in stage II and III colon cancer patients. Br. J. Cancer 109, 395–400 10.1038/bjc.2013.346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Neal C.P., Cairns V., Jones M.J., Masood M.M., Nana G.R., Mann C.D. et al. (2015) Prognostic performance of inflammation-based prognostic indices in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases. Med. Oncol. 32, 144 10.1007/s12032-015-0590-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zhou D., Liang J., Xu L.I., He F., Zhou Z., Zhang Y. et al. (2016) Derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts prognosis for patients with HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma following transarterial chemoembolization. Oncol. Lett. 11, 2987–2994 10.3892/ol.2016.4359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Battersby N.J., Bouliotis G., Emmertsen K.J., Juul T., Glynne-Jones R., Branagan G. et al. (2018) Development and external validation of a nomogram and online tool to predict bowel dysfunction following restorative rectal cancer resection: the POLARS score. Gut 67, 688–696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Shim J.H., Jun M.J., Han S., Lee Y.J., Lee S.G., Kim K.M. et al. (2015) Prognostic nomograms for prediction of recurrence and survival after curative liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann. Surg. 261, 939–946 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lei Z., Li J., Wu D., Xia Y., Wang Q., Si A. et al. (2016) Nomogram for preoperative estimation of microvascular invasion risk in Hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan Criteria. JAMA Surg. 151, 356–363 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.4257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]