Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0277892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277892

Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not associated with the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia

Antonio Braga 1,2,3,4,*, Ana Clara Canelas 1, Berenice Torres 1, Izildinha Maesta 5, Luana Giongo Pedrotti 6, Marina Bessel 6, Ana Paula Vieira dos Santos Esteves 1, Joffre Amim Junior 1, Jorge Rezende Filho 1, Kevin M Elias 7, Neil S Horowitz 7, Ross S Berkowitz 7
Editor: Roberto Magalhães Saraiva8
PMCID: PMC9714693  PMID: 36454778

Abstract

Objective

To relate preevacuation platelet count and leukogram findings, especially neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios (NLR) and platelet/lymphocyte ratios with the occurrence of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) after complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) among Brazilian women.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of patients with CHM followed at Rio de Janeiro Federal University, from January/2015-December/2020. Before molar evacuation, all patients underwent a medical evaluation, complete blood count and hCG measurement, in addition to other routine preoperative tests. The primary outcome was the occurrence of postmolar GTN.

Results

From 827 cases of CHM treated initially at the Reference Center, 696 (84.15%) had spontaneous remission and 131 (15.85%) developed postmolar GTN. Using optimal cut-offs from receiver operating characteristic curves and multivariable logistic regression adjusted for the possible confounding variables of age and preevacuation hCG level (already known to be associated with the development of GTN) we found that ≥2 medical complications at presentation (aOR: 1.96, CI 95%: 1.29–2.98, p<0.001) and preevacuation hCG ≥100,000 IU/L (aOR: 2.16, CI 95%: 1.32–3.52, p<0.001) were significantly associated with postmolar GTN after CHM. However, no blood count profile findings were able to predict progression from CHM to GTN.

Conclusion

Although blood count is a widely available test, being a low-cost test and mandatory before molar evacuation, and prognostic for outcome in other neoplasms, its findings were not able to predict the occurrence of GTN after CHM. In contrast, the occurrence of medical complications at presentation and higher preevacuation hCG levels were significantly associated with postmolar GTN and may be useful to guide individualized clinical decisions in post-molar follow-up and treatment of these patients.

Introduction

Hydatidiform mole (HM) is the most common form of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD) and represents its benign spectrum [1]. It results from an abnormal fertilization, which presents as either of two clinical forms, complete (CHM) and partial hydatidiform mole (PHM), which differ from each other by their cytogenetic, histological, clinical and prognostic profile [2].

PHM originates from a diandric triploidy, with rare atypical villi, and a generally mild clinical presentation, which can progress to postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) in about 1–5% of cases. CHM, on the other hand, results from a diandric diploidy, exhibiting marked trophoblastic hyperplasia, exuberant clinical presentation and progression to postmolar GTN in about 15–20% of cases [14].

GTN is highly curable, even in multimetastatic disease, due to multiagent chemotherapy that, despite early and late toxicity, promotes disease remission [5, 6]. Patients with CHM who are carefully followed with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) monitoring are generally diagnosed with low-risk GTN and achieve high remission rates with single agent chemotherapy with low morbidity [7, 8].

The prediction of postmolar GTN has made only limited progress. The prior established prognostic parameters have failed to be highly predictive of the occurrence of postmolar GTN, such as the presence of medical complications and the trophoblast pathology [9]. Promising methods such as evaluation of ploidy, markers of cell proliferation and apoptosis [10, 11], oncogene expression [12] and analysis of circulating micro ribonucleic acid (RNA) [13], are complex and often unavailable in clinical practice, especially in developing countries, where there is a higher incidence of HM. Knowing which patients are at high risk of developing postmolar GTN and employing strict postmolar follow-up may facilitate early diagnosis of GTN. Furthermore, identifying patients with minimal probability of developing postmolar GTN may allow shorter hCG follow-up, particularly after hCG normalization, with a consequent decrease in patients lost to follow-up, patients’ anxiety and the costs of prolonged hormonal surveillance.

Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios (NLR) and platelet/lymphocyte ratios (PLR) have been associated with prognosis for many different non-malignant and malignant diseases, including gynecological tumors, suggesting these hematological findings of inflammation and oxidative stress in peripheral blood may be involved in disease pathogenesis and may serve as a prognostic marker as well [14, 15]. However, the studies are heterogeneous and present controversial results. Moreover, the data for the assessment of these parameters in the prognosis of HM are scarce and come from series with few cases evaluated [1618].

This study evaluates the potential relationship between the blood count results, especially the NLR, and the occurrence of postmolar GTN among Brazilian women. Our results are particularly important because of the need for simple prognostic variables that might be obtained from complete blood cell counts that are systematically requested before molar evacuation and are widely available in clinical practice, even in countries with limited health resources.

Material and methods

Study design

This is a retrospective historical cohorts study of patients with HM followed at the Rio de Janeiro Trophoblastic Disease Center—Maternity School of Rio de Janeiro Federal University (Rio de Janeiro—RJ, Brazil, data entered by ACC and BT and audited by AB), from January 1st 2015 to December 31st 2020. This study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board associated with the Brazilian Research Ethics Committee of the Maternity School of the Rio de Janeiro Federal University (CAAE 49462315.0.0000.5275, opinion number 1.244.337 of September 25th, 2015 and 3.972.252 of April 15th, 2020 –amendment). The study was done with anonymized patient records, so the Ethics Committees waived the need for obtaining individual informed consent.

Study participants

The participants in this study were women who underwent molar evacuation at the Rio de Janeiro GTD Reference Center (CR) [19] and diagnosed with CHM, confirmed by histopathology [20]. We decided to evaluate only the cases of CHM because, in addition to being epidemiologically more frequent in our sample more reliably diagnosed than PHM, CHM have a higher occurrence of postmolar GTN, providing a more appropriate correlation with the primary outcome of this study.

All patients included in this study were followed to six months after hCG normalization or until the diagnosis of postmolar GTN. Hormonal contraception was advised during all follow-up [21]. Patients with histopathological diagnosis of PHM or twin molar pregnancy, those who became pregnant or were lost to follow-up were excluded from this study.

To obtain the complete blood count, no fasting was required. In all patients, the blood test was collected within 6 hours before surgery. The blood collection area was sanitized with cotton and alcohol. An elastic band was attached above the area to be punctured, so that the vein could be clearly seen. A fine needle was inserted into the vein and a total of 2 mL venous blood sample was collected from each patient. All blood samples were placed in tripotassium ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid anticoagulation tubes. All measurements were analyzed using a Pentra ES 60 (Horiba Medical, Montpellier, France) within 30 minutes after blood collection. White blood cell count, platelet count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count (as well as band neutrophils and segmented neutrophils) were obtained directly from the blood analyzer, while NLR and PLR were obtained by dividing neutrophil count or platelet count by lymphocyte count, respectively. Similarly, during the entire cohort study, we used the Siemens Diagnostic Products Corporation Immulite® assay to measure hCG, with the reference value for normal serum hCG results below 5 IU/L.

Outcome

The primary outcome evaluated was the occurrence of postmolar GTN. The secondary outcomes evaluated were the occurrence of medical complications, high preevacuation hCG levels and the presence of abnormalities in blood count parameters among patients with CHM, before molar evacuation.

Variables

The following population variables were studied: age (in years), number of gestations, births and abortions of the patient.

Clinical and biochemical variables evaluated included: gestational age at diagnosis (in weeks), largest uterine diameter (in millimeters, evaluated by pelvic-transvaginal ultrasound), preevacuation hCG serum level (in IU/L), occurrence of medical symptoms at presentation (%): hemorrhage, enlarged uterus for gestational age (defined as a uterus measuring at least 4 cm more than expected for gestational age), theca lutein cysts larger than 6 cm (measured by pelvic-transvaginal ultrasound); early-onset pre-eclampsia (blood pressure of 140mmHg or greater for systolic pressure or 90mmHg or greater for diastolic pressure, on two occasions at least 4 hours apart in a previously normotensive patient, in the presence of proteinuria of 300mg or more in 24 hours or on the presence of headache, visual turbidity, abdominal pain or altered laboratory tests, such as platelets <100,000/mm3, hepatic enzyme elevation more than double the basal level, serum creatinine >1.1mg/dL or double the baseline, or pulmonary edema and visual or brain disorders such as headache, scotomas, or convulsions) and hyperemesis (presence of five or more episodes of vomiting per day, with or without metabolic alterations) [22].

Time to remission (in weeks) was defined as the period between the molar evacuation and the third hCG measurement of under 5 IU/L. We used the criteria established by Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d’Obstétrique (FIGO) and European Society for Medical Oncology for postmolar GTN diagnosis: rising (more than 10%) hCG levels for three consecutive weeks or plateaued for four weeks, a histological diagnosis of choriocarcinoma or metastases detected during post-molar follow-up, particularly in the lungs and pelvis [23, 24].

Statistical analysis

We calculated a minimal sample size to detect mean differences in NLR between postmolar GTN and spontaneous remission among Brazilian women with CHM, considering a power of 80%, a significance level of 5% and a standard deviation in NLR of 1.93 for the control group and a standard deviation of 1.94 for the treatment group, and a minimum difference to detect of 0.40. Considering the calculation of the minimum number of patients to be included in this study, to ensure the power of its conclusions, we required a sample size of at least 736 subjects.

Categorical variables were described as absolute and relative frequencies, while continuous variables as medians and interquartile ranges. To compare proportions, a Chi-square test was used and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables.

The optimal cut-points for leukogram variables were estimated by the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve by minimizing the Euclidean distance between the curve and the point (0,1) in the ROC space. For each of the evaluated laboratory markers, their sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the occurrence of the outcome of interest were calculated.

For outcomes of interest, crude and age/hCG-adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Wald test for logistic regression. The estimated optimal cut-points were categorized and used as predictors in their respective logistic regression.

The analyses were carried out using SAS software, version 9.4 and the R software, version 4.1.3, was performed for graphics. All analyses considered a significance level of 0.05.

Results

Fig 1 is a flow diagram summarizing the derivation of the study population. From January 2015 to December 2020, 1,685 patients with HM were followed at Rio de Janeiro GTD RC. Among these, 1,298 underwent uterine evacuation at the RC. After excluding cases of PHM (394 patients), twin molar pregnancy (13 patients), those who got pregnant (5 patients) or were lost to postmolar follow-up (59 patients), the final study population comprised 827 cases of CHM. Among these, 696 (84.15%) had spontaneous remission and 131 (15.85%) developed postmolar GTN.

Fig 1. Flow diagram summarizing the derivation of the study population.

Fig 1

The clinical characteristics of the study cohort are presented in Table 1. We observed that cases of CHM with advanced maternal age (33 versus 26 years, p<0.001), larger uterine diameter (110 versus 104mm, p = 0.042) and with hemorrhage (67.18% versus 41.67%, p<0.001) and enlarged uterus for gestational age (42.75% versus 28.59%, p = 0.001) as medical symptoms at presentation were associated with the development of postmolar GTN, and therefore longer time to remission (14 versus 9 weeks, p<0.001) when compared to patients who had spontaneous remission, respectively.

Table 1. Clinical characteristics of patients with complete hydatidiform mole associated with spontaneous remission or progression to gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

Variables HM a with SR b (N = 696) HM a with progression to GTN c (N = 131) p-value *
Age (years) # 26 (20–34) 33 (24–41) < 0.001
Gestation # 2 (1–3) 2 (1–3) 0.726
Parity # 0 (0–1) 1 (0–1) 0.236
Abortion # 0 (0–1) 0 (0–1) 0.605
Gestational age at diagnosis (weeks) # 11 (9–14) 10 (9–13) 0.099
Largest uterine diameter (millimeter) # 104 (82–123) 110 (82–140) 0.042
Medical symptoms at presentation (%)
Hemorrhage 290 (41.67) 88 (67.18) < 0.001
Enlarged uterus for gestational age 199 (28.59) 56 (42.75) 0.001
Theca lutein cysts 37 (5.32) 13 (9.92) 0.042
Preeclampsia 23 (3.30) 5 (3.82) 0.766
Hyperemesis 157 (22.56) 35 (26.72) 0.301
Time to remission (weeks) # 9.00 (6.00–9.71) 14.00 (10.00–19.00) < 0.001

# Median and interquartile range.

* Chi-square or Mann-Whitney tests.

a. CHM. Complete hydatidiform mole.

b. SR. Spontaneous remission.

c. GTN. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

Table 2 shows that the difference in platelet count (257,500 versus 258,000mm3, p = 0.803) and leukogram assessment, especially NLR (2.79 versus 2.64, p = 0.307) or PLR (129.26 versus 123.75, p = 0.610), were not associated with the occurrence of postmolar GTN, with the exception of the preevacuation hCG level (235.497 IU/L versus 154,409 IU/L, p<0.001) when compared to patients who had spontaneous remission, respectively.

Table 2. Laboratory findings of patients with complete hydatidiform mole associated with spontaneous remission or progression to gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

Variables # HM a with SR b HM a with progression to GTN c p-value *
hCG d preevacuation (IU/L) 154,409 (67,531–310,160) 235,497 (110,034–671,275) < 0.001
Platelets (mm3) 258,000 (214,000–299,000) 257,500 (212,000–303,000) 0.803
Leukogram
White blood count (mm 3 ) 7,478 (6,120–9,450) 7,557 (6,080–9,476) 0.862
Lymphocyte (mm 3 ) 2,046 (1,620–2,541) 1,980 (1,550–2,520) 0.535
Neutrophil (mm 3 ) 5,463 (4,148–7,052) 5,613 (4,290–7,100) 0.684
Band neutrophils (mm 3 ) 160 (82–292) 156 (91–300) 0.750
Segmented neutrophils (mm 3 ) 5,340 (4,080–6,825) 5,373 (4,212–6,920) 0.741
Ratio neutrophil/lymphocyte 2.64 (2.03–3.63) 2.79 (2.19–3.61) 0.307
Ratio platelets/lymphocyte 123.75 (97.81–161.80) 129.26 (98.02–165.14) 0.610

# Median and interquartile range.

* Mann-Whitney test.

a. HM. Hydatidiform mole.

b. SR. Spontaneous remission.

c. GTN. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

d. hCG. Human chorionic gonadotropin.

To obtain the optimal cut-off among the different laboratory markers studied in the complete blood count, ROC curves for the occurrence of postmolar GTN were studied as shows in Fig 2. Table 3 present data, for each of these laboratory markers, including the area under the curve, its Se, Sp, PPV and NPV for the occurrence of the outcome evaluated. Platelet count and band neutrophils had the highest PPV (0.85 and 0.84), albeit with modest sensitivity (0.55 and 0.49) and specificity (0.49 and 0.52), respectively.

Fig 2. Receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrating area under curve of white blood count, lymphocytes, platelets count, total neutrophils, band neutrophils, segmented neutrophils, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-lymphocyte ratio for the occurrence of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia among patients with complete hydatidiform mole.

Fig 2

Table 3. Predictive variables of the occurrence of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia among patients with complete hydatidiform mole obtained by receiver operating characteristic curves.

Variables Area under curve Optimal cut off Se a Sp b PPV c NPV d
Platelets (mm3) 0.51 253,000 0.55 0.49 0.85 0.17
Leukogram
White blood count (mm 3 ) 0.50 8,010 0.46 0.58 0.17 0.85
Lymphocyte (mm 3 ) 0.52 1,998 0.53 0.52 0.85 0.17
Neutrophil (mm 3 ) 0.51 5,720 0.49 0.55 0.17 0.85
Band neutrophils (mm 3 ) 0.49 162 0.49 0.52 0.84 0.16
Segmented neutrophils (mm 3 ) 0.51 5,544 0.49 0.54 0.17 0.85
Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio 0.53 2.55 0.61 0.47 0.18 0.86
Platelets/lymphocyte ratio 0.51 123.75 0.57 0.50 0.18 0.86

a. Se. Sensitivity.

b. Sp. Specificity.

c. PPV. Predictive positive value.

d. NPV. Negative predictive value.

Using these optimal cut-offs from the ROC curves in multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for possible confounding variables of age and preevacuation hCG level, already known to be associated with the development of GTN, Table 4 shows that only the occurrence of ≥2 medical complications at presentation (aOR: 1.96, CI 95%: 1.29–2.98, p = 0.001) and preevacuation hCG ≥100,000 IU/L (aOR: 2.16, CI 95%: 1.32–3.52, p = 0.002) were able to predict the occurrence of postmolar GTN. None of the complete blood count parameters nor their ratios were prognostic.

Table 4. Logistic regression for prognostic factors associated with development of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia after complete hydatidiform mole.

Variables cOR a * (95% CI) p-value aOR b * (95% CI) p-value
Gestational age > 10 weeks 0.72 (0.46–1.13) 0.150 0.76 (0.46–1.25) 0.275
Occurrence ≥ 2 medical complications # 2.22 (1.52–3.24) <0.001 1.96 (1.29–2.98) 0.001
Preevacuation hCG c,d ≥100.000 IU/L 2.14 (1.32–3.48) 0.002 2.16 (1.32–3.52) 0.002
Platelets ≥ 253,000 mm3 0.85 (0.58–1.24) 0.397 0.93 (0.62–1.41) 0.742
Leukogram
White blood count ≥ 8,010 mm3 1.18 (0.81–1.72) 0.391 1.08 (0.71–1.64) 0.710
Lymphocyte ≥ 1,998 mm3 0.80 (0.55–1.17) 0.251 0.89 (0.59–1.35) 0.593
Neutrophil ≥ 5,720 mm3 1.20 (0.82–1.74) 0.349 1.08 (0.71–1.63) 0.717
Band neutrophils ≥ 162 mm 3 0.91 (0.63–1.33) 0.628 0.92 (0.61–1.39) 0.686
Segmented neutrophils ≥ 5,544 mm3 1.15 (0.79–1.67) 0.477 1.03 (0.68–1.56) 0.875
Ratio neutrophil/lymphocyte ≥ 2.55 1.44 (0.98–2.12) 0.060 1.29 (0.85–1.96) 0.228
Ratio platelets/lymphocyte ≥ 123.75 1.36 (0.93–1.99) 0.108 1.49 (0.98–2.25) 0.061

*. Wald test for logistic regression.

#. Medical complications: hemorrhage, enlarged uterus for gestational age, theca lutein cysts, preeclampsia or hyperemesis.

a. cOR. Crude odds ratio.

b. aOR. Adjusted odds ratio by age and hCG.

c. hCG. Human chorionic gonadotropin.

d. Adjusted odds ratio by age

Discussion

While the occurrence of at least two medical complications at presentation and higher hCG preevacuation levels were associated with an increased chance of developing GTN during postmolar follow-up, none of the blood count parameters obtained before molar evacuation, notably platelet count, NLR or PLR, were able to predict the occurrence of postmolar GTN in the CHM population studied.

The intricate molecular mechanisms involved in the progression of CHM into GTN are not fully understood. It is noteworthy that our data reinforce the perception that the early diagnosis of CHM, while making the clinical presentation of this disease milder [25], does not have a protective effect against the occurrence of postmolar GTN [26]. This suggests that the propensity to develop GTN may already be present in the trophoblast tissue even before uterine evacuation. The presence of medical complications at presentation and the preevacuation hCG level have been classically associated with this outcome [1]. This study adds to the prior knowledge in the field by showing that the findings of the hemogram performed before molar evacuation, evaluated by optimal cut-off points, obtained by ROC curves, and adjusted for confounding variables, were not significantly associated with the development of postmolar GTN, as suggested by previous, smaller studies.

Although most studies that evaluate the laboratory findings of the complete blood count compare patients with HM and a control formed by non-pregnant [27], healthy pregnancies [28] or even with cases of abortion [29, 30], three studies were identified that evaluated these findings among HM patients with spontaneous remission or that developed postmolar GTN. Guzel et al. found an association between NLR and the occurrence of postmolar GTN, but with values more than three times higher than we reported in the current study (8.96 versus 2.58, respectively) [18]. This may have occurred because these authors evaluated only 8 patients with postmolar GTN, a number 100 times lower than ours. The same limitation is present in the study by Yayla et al. who, when comparing 13 cases of postmolar GTN, found significantly lower levels in the PLR of patients who developed GTN [19]. Verit, reported that the platelet count was significant lower in patients who would develop postmolar GTN [20]. However, in addition to not comparing the platelets count obtained by the optimal cut-off point from ROC curves, the results of these three studies were not adjusted for confounding variables, in a multivariable logistic regression, as here. This is essential to exclude the influence of other variables on the results found. It is worth noting, for example, that, although discrete, the decrease in lymphocyte and platelet counts is expected with age, which, inversely, increases the occurrence of postmolar GTN, showing the importance of eliminating the effect of these confounders in this study.

Generally, cancer has many common features with infectious or inflammatory responses to trauma such as immune activation, acute phase response and systemic inflammation [16]. In this context, numerous studies have shown an association between high levels of NLR and tumor outcomes, making this marker frequently included in the prognostic evaluation of several solid tumors [31]. However, an extensive review of 204 meta-analyses of observational studies found that in only 60 meta-analyses (29%) an elevated NLR finding was, in fact, significantly associated with tumor prognosis. Furthermore, that paper also drew attention to the great heterogeneity of the studies evaluated, many with small sample sizes, generating small study effect biases, which need to be considered [32]. Another point is that many of the associations between blood count findings and oncologic prognosis come from observational studies in which results that lie between OR 0.33 and 3 are considered significant, in which there is a risk of large bias potentially leading to spurious associations [33], demanding caution in the interpretation of these results.

Although the NLR and other blood cell component counts were unable to predict the cases of CHM that will develop postmolar GTN, it would be important to evaluate these markers in cases of postmolar GTN, in order to assess whether there is a relationship between these findings and the occurrence of chemoresistance, high risk disease, number of chemotherapy cycles to remission and time to remission, and survival rate or recurrence. Perhaps, studying established neoplasia (GTN), instead of pre-malignant disease (CHM) can provide better prognostic parameters. Although new modern technologies such as microRNA have shown promising results in predicting the prognosis of CHM, their cost and availability limit their clinical use [13], which contrasts with NLR and other blood cell counts that are simple, inexpensive and widely available laboratory tests, which need to be further evaluated.

The greatest strength of our study was the use of an adequate statistical methodology that could identify the predictive factor of the outcome, excluding the effect of confounding variables. Furthermore, our study presented the largest series evaluating the potential relationship between the blood count in patients with hydatidiform mole in the literature, exceeding the minimum number of patients necessary to guarantee the power of its results. However, our study does have several limitations. The study is retrospective in nature and retrospective studies may potentially be prone to bias as records may be less complete and have less accurate record keeping. In addition, we only focused on the common parameters of the complete blood count and did not evaluate other hematologic variables such as red cell distribution width, mean corpuscular volume, or rare lymphocyte subsets.

In conclusion, even though the blood count results were not able to predict the progression of CHM into GTN, the occurrence of medical complications at presentation and higher preevacuation hCG levels were significantly associated with postmolar GTN and may be useful to guide individualized clinical decisions in post-molar follow-up and treatment of these patients. However, it would be helpful to identify an inexpensive and widely available laboratory prognostic markers to aid in the prediction of postmolar GTN.

Data Availability

Due to ethical issues related to the public disclosure of a database of a disease that is not highly prevalent, coming from a delimited geographical area, with the potential to breach data confidentiality, even in the face of data de-identification, any data referring to the study “Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not associated with the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia” must be requested directly from the Research Ethics Committee of the Maternity School of Rio de Janeiro Federal University, with due justification analyzed by this institutional review board, in order to preserve the interests of research participants, following compliance with research standards in Brazil (CNS/CONEP/CEP 466/2012). The Research Ethics Committee of the Maternity School of Rio de Janeiro Federal University can be contacted directly through the institutional email, cep@me.ufrj.br, or directly by phone, 55.21.2285-7935.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – CNPq (AB: 311862/2020-9), Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro – FAPERJ (AB: E-26/201.166/2022), Donald P. Goldstein MD Trophoblastic Tumor Registry Endowment (KME, NH, RSB), the Dyett Family Trophoblastic Disease Research and Registry Endowment (KME, NH, RSB) and Keith Higgins and the Andrea S. Higgins Research Fund (KME, NH, RSB). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Elias KM, Berkowitz RS, Horowitz NS. State-of-the-Art Workup and Initial Management of Newly Diagnosed Molar Pregnancy and Postmolar Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(11):1396–1401. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.7364 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lurain J. Gestational trophoblastic disease I: epidemiology, pathology, clinical presentation and diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease, and management of hydatidiform mole. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(6):531–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Braga A, Maesta I. Challenges of the treatment of patients with gestational trophoblastic disease. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2012;34(4):143–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Braga A, Uberti EMH, Fajardo MC, Viggiano M, Sun SY, Grillo M, et al. Epidemiological report on the treatment of patients with gestational trophoblastic disease in 10 Brazilian referral centers: results after 12 years since International FIGO 2000 Consensus. J Reprod Med. 2014;59(5–6):241–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lurain JR. Gestational trophoblastic disease II: classification and management of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(1):11–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lok C, van Trommel N, Massuger L, Golfier F, Seckl M, Clinical Working Party of the EOTTD. Practical clinical guidelines of the EOTTD for treatment and referral of gestational trophoblastic disease. Eur J Cancer. 2020;130:228–240. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Freitas F., Braga A., Viggiano M., Velarde L.G.C., Maesta I., Uberti E. et al. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia lethality among Brazilian women: A retrospective national cohort study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020;158(2),452–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.04.704 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dantas PRS, Maestá I, Cortés-Charry R, Growdon WB, Braga A, Rudge MVC, et al. Influence of hydatidiform mole follow-up setting on postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia outcomes: a cohort study. J Reprod Med. 2012;57(7–8):305–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Genest DR, Laborde O, Berkowitz RS, Goldstein DP, Bernstein MR, Lage J. A clinicopathologic study of 153 cases of complete hydatidiform mole (1980–90) histologic grade lacks prognostic significance. Obstet Gynecol. 1991(3Pt1);78:402–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.van-de-Kaa CA, Schijf CP, de-Wilde PC, de Leeuw H, Gemmink JH, Robben JC, et al. Persistent gestational trophoblastic disease: DNA image cytometry and interphase cytogenetics have limited predictive value. Mod Pathol. 1996;9(10):1007–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Braga A, Maestá I, Soares RR, Elias KM, Domingues MAC, Barbisan LF, et al. Apoptotic index for prediction of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(3):336.e1–336.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cheung ANY, Shen DH, Khoo US, Chiu MP, Tin VP, Chung LP, et al. Immunohistochemical and mutational analysis of p53 tumour suppressor gene in gestational trophoblastic disease—correlation with mdm2, proliferation index and clinicopathological parameters. Int J Gynaecol Cancer. 1999;9(2):123–30. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1438.1999.09904.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lin LH, Maestá I, Laurent JD, Hasselblatt KT, Horowitz NS, Goldstein DP, et al. Distinct microRNA profiles for complete hydatidiform moles at risk of malignant progression. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(4):372.e1–372.e30. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zahorec R. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, past, present and future perspectives. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2021;122(7):474–488. doi: 10.4149/BLL_2021_078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Williams KA, Labidi-Galy SI, Terry KL, Vitonis AF, Welch WR, Goodman A, et al. Prognostic significance and predictors of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):542–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Guzel AI, Kokanali MK, Erkilinc S, Topcu HO, Oz M, Erkaya S, et al. Predictive role of the neutrophil lymphocyte ratio for invasion with gestational trophoblastic disease. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(10):4203–6. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.10.4203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yayla CA, Özkaya E, Yenidede I, Eser A, Ergen EB, Tayyar AT, et al. Predictive value of some hematological parameters for non-invasive and invasive mole pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(3):271–277. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1281906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Verit FF. May platelet count be a predictor of low-risk persistent gestational trophoblastic disease? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283(4):695–9. doi: 10.1007/s00404-010-1408-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Padrón L, Rezende-Filho J, Amim-Junior J, Sun SY, Cortés-Charry R, Maestá I, et al. Manual Compared With Electric Vacuum Aspiration for Treatment of Molar Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(4):652–659. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sebire NJ, Makrydimas G, Agnantis NJ, Zagorianakou N, Rees H, Fisher RA. Updated diagnostic criteria for partial and complete hydatidiform moles in early pregnancy. Anticancer Res. 2003;23(2C):1723–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Braga A, Maestá I, Short D, Savage P, Harvey R, Seckl MJ. Hormonal contraceptive use before hCG remission does not increase the risk of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia following complete hydatidiform mole: a historical database review. BJOG. 2016;123(8):1330–5. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Braga A, Moraes V, Maestá I, Amim-Junior J, Rezende-Filho J, Elias K, et al. Changing Trends in the Clinical Presentation and Management of Complete Hydatidiform Mole Among Brazilian Women. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(5):984–90. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000682 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d’Obstétrique Oncology Committee. FIGO staging for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia 2000. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002;77(3):285–7. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7292(02)00063-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ, Fisher RA, Golfier F, Massuger L, Sessa C; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Gestational trophoblastic disease: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24 Suppl 6:vi39–50. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sun SY, Goldstein DP, Bernstein MR, Horowitz NS, Mattar R, et al. Maternal Near Miss According to World Health Organization Classification Among Women with a Hydatidiform Mole: Experience at the New England Trophoblastic Disease Center, 1994–2013. J Reprod Med. 2016;61(5–6):210–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sun SY, Melamed A, Goldstein DP, Bernstein MR, Horowitz NS, et al. Changing presentation of complete hydatidiform mole at the New England Trophoblastic Disease Center over the past three decades: does early diagnosis alter risk for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia? Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(1):46–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zhang L, Xie Y, Xhan L. The potential value of red blood cell distribution width in patients with invasive hydatidiform mole. J Clin Lab Anal. 2019;33(4):e22846. doi: 10.1002/jcla.22846 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Eskicioglu F, Ulkumen BA, Calik E. Complete blood count parameters may have a role in diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease. Pak J Med Sci. 2015;31(3):667–71. doi: 10.12669/pjms.313.7109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Aiob A, Naskovica K, Zilberfarb IA, Sharn A, Bornstein J, et al. Complete blood count parameters, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in hydatidiform mole versus missed abortion. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2022;43(2):175–82. doi: 10.31083/j.ejgo4302023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Karapınar OS, Şilfeler DB, Dolapçıoğlu K, Kurt RK, Beyazıt A. The effect of molar pregnancies on platelet parameters. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;36(7):912–915. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2016.1174823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Howard R, Kanetsky PA, Egan KM. Exploring the prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in cancer. Sci Rep 2019; 9(1):19673. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56218-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cupp MA, Cariolou M, Tzoulaki I, Aune D, Evangelou E, Berlanga-Taylor AJ. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and cancer prognosis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):360. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01817-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Grimes DA, Schulz KF. False alarms and pseudo-epidemics: the limitations of observational epidemiology. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(4):920–7. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31826af61a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Roberto Magalhães Saraiva

10 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-23500Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not associated with the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Braga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Roberto Magalhães Saraiva, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Many thanks for asking me to review this retrospective study from an internationally renowned GTD collaborative group. The study aimed to evaluate the relationship between neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios (NLR) and platelet/lymphocyte ratios and the occurrence of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) after complete hydatidiform mole (CHM)

among Brazilian women. High pre-treatment NLR for example can be associated with poorer outcomes in cancer patients with variation in the size of this association across studies of cancer patients.

The paper is well written and clear and involves a larger number of CHM pts. The clear outcome, after adjusting for potential confounders, is that there is no association here with the development of post molar GTN from CHM. This is worthy of publication for the international GTN community as some much smaller series have reported a potential association.

I have the following minor comments:

Was there a set time frame before evacuation in which the blood count was taken or was it on the day of the evacuation - would this have any influence on the results

Are there any subgroups of patients e.g. ethic groups - where there may be stronger associations?

Can the authors expand on why they think that Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not predictive the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia from CHM. Is this the fact that CHM is a pre-malignant diagnosis, clearly different from e.g. NLR trying to predict outcome in established cancer? Would it be useful to look at a later stage e.g. NLR prior to treatment in GTN to see if this may have an association with outcome e.g. resistance, survival in high risk disease?

Perhaps the authors can add to the discussion at the end some further detail in how they see future development of predicting the development of post-molar GTN e.g. microRNA etc

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0277892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277892.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Oct 2022

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

October, 2022.

Dr. Emily Chenette, PhD. Editor-in-Chief, PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Emily Chenette and the members of the Editorial Board:

Response to reviewers

Paper: “Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not associated with the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia”

Initially, we would like to highlight that we made a surname correction, changing the original name from Berenice Nogueira to Berenice Torres. In addition, we linked a new institution to the first author: Postgraduate Program in Applied Health Sciences, Vassouras University. Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil.

Editor review.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

REPLY: We appreciate the comment and agree with the reviewer. Please note that the necessary corrections have been made.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

REPLY: We appreciate the comment and agree with the reviewer. Please note that we already presented this declaration in the methods section, in the original submission, as follows: “The study was done with anonymized patient records, so the Ethics Committees waived the need for obtaining individual informed consent.”.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

REPLY: We appreciate the comment and agree with the reviewer. We have included the following Data Availability Statement as follows: “Data Availability Statement. Due to ethical issues related to the public disclosure of a database of a disease that is not highly prevalent, coming from a delimited geographical area, with the potential to breach data confidentiality, even in the face of data de-identification, we emphasize that any data referring to the study: “Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not associated with the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia” must be requested directly from the Research Ethics Committee of the Maternity School of Rio de Janeiro Federal University, with due justification analyzed by this institutional review board, in order to preserve the interests of research participants, following compliance with research standards in Brazil (CNS/CONEP/CEP 466/2012).

The Research Ethics Committee of the Maternity School of Rio de Janeiro Federal University can be contacted directly through the institutional email: cep@me.ufrj.br or directly by phone: 55.21.2285-7935.”.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

REPLY: We appreciate the comment and agree with the reviewer. We have made the necessary changes in this revised version.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

REPLY: We appreciate the comment and agree with the reviewer. We emphasize that we do not include in our references any article that has been retracted and have made no changes to our reference list.

Reviewer 1. Many thanks for asking me to review this retrospective study from an internationally renowned GTD collaborative group. The study aimed to evaluate the relationship between neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios (NLR) and platelet/lymphocyte ratios and the occurrence of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) after complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) among Brazilian women. High pre-treatment NLR for example can be associated with poorer outcomes in cancer patients with variation in the size of this association across studies of cancer patients. The paper is well written and clear and involves a larger number of CHM pts. The clear outcome, after adjusting for potential confounders, is that there is no association here with the development of post molar GTN from CHM. This is worthy of publication for the international GTN community as some much smaller series have reported a potential association. I have the following minor comments:

1. Was there a set time frame before evacuation in which the blood count was taken or was it on the day of the evacuation - would this have any influence on the results.

REPLY: We appreciate the comment and agree with the reviewer. The issue is relevant and we added the following sentence in the description of the methods: "In all patients, the blood test was collected within 6 hours before surgery".

2. Are there any subgroups of patients e.g. ethic groups - where there may be stronger associations?

REPLY: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify these aspects. Although previous studies have attributed different outcomes of hydatidiform mole, in relation to certain ethnic population groups, no Brazilian study has been carried out in this sense. This is due to the Brazilian ethnic background being extremely mixed, making it difficult to ethnically characterize patients. Furthermore, Brazilian legislation prohibits physicians from establishing the ethnic classification of their patients, which in Brazil is done according to self-declaration, which, in itself, makes it difficult to analyze this variable.

3. Can the authors expand on why they think that Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not predictive the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia from CHM. Is this the fact that CHM is a pre-malignant diagnosis, clearly different from e.g. NLR trying to predict outcome in established cancer? Would it be useful to look at a later stage e.g. NLR prior to treatment in GTN to see if this may have an association with outcome e.g. resistance, survival in high risk disease?

REPLY: We appreciate the comment and agree with the reviewer. We have added the following sentences in the Discussion section to contextualize the reviewer's comment, as follows: “Although the NLR and other blood cell component counts were unable to predict the cases of CHM that will develop postmolar GTN, it would be important to evaluate these markers in cases of postmolar GTN, in order to assess whether there is a relationship between these findings and the occurrence of chemoresistance, high risk disease, number of chemotherapy cycles to remission and time to remission, and survival rate or recurrence. Perhaps, studying established neoplasia (GTN), instead of pre-malignant disease (CHM) can provide better prognostic parameters.”.

4. Perhaps the authors can add to the discussion at the end some further detail in how they see future development of predicting the development of post-molar GTN e.g. microRNA etc.

REPLY: We appreciate the comment and agree with the reviewer. We have added the following sentences in the Discussion section to contextualize the reviewer's comment, as follows: “Although new modern technologies such as microRNA have shown promising results in predicting the prognosis of CHM, their cost and availability limit their clinical use [34], which contrasts with NLR and other blood cell counts that are simple, inexpensive and widely available laboratory tests, which need to be further evaluated.”.

34. Lin LH, Maestá I, St Laurent JD, Hasselblatt KT, Horowitz NS, Goldstein DP, Quade BJ, et al. Distinct microRNA profiles for complete hydatidiform moles at risk of malignant progression. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(4):372.e1-372.e30. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.048.

Sincerely,

Antonio Braga MD and Ross Berkowitz MD

For the authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

Decision Letter 1

Roberto Magalhães Saraiva

6 Nov 2022

Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not associated with the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia

PONE-D-22-23500R1

Dear Dr. Braga,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Roberto Magalhães Saraiva, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded with appropriate answers and they have made appropriate edits made to the manuscript

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Roberto Magalhães Saraiva

9 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-23500R1

Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not associated with the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia

Dear Dr. Braga:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Roberto Magalhães Saraiva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Due to ethical issues related to the public disclosure of a database of a disease that is not highly prevalent, coming from a delimited geographical area, with the potential to breach data confidentiality, even in the face of data de-identification, any data referring to the study “Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and other blood cell component counts are not associated with the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia” must be requested directly from the Research Ethics Committee of the Maternity School of Rio de Janeiro Federal University, with due justification analyzed by this institutional review board, in order to preserve the interests of research participants, following compliance with research standards in Brazil (CNS/CONEP/CEP 466/2012). The Research Ethics Committee of the Maternity School of Rio de Janeiro Federal University can be contacted directly through the institutional email, cep@me.ufrj.br, or directly by phone, 55.21.2285-7935.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES