Abstract
Sarcopenia is defined as loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength. This can lead to adverse clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. The lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), a converted inflammatory response, is associated with poor prognosis in patients with malignancies. Herein, we examined the prognostic influence of sarcopenia status assessed by pectoralis muscle area (PMA), inflammatory status calculated by LMR, and its association with disease-free survival (DFS) in a cohort of women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer. A total of 293 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer who underwent primary mass resection and radiotherapy between January 2011 and December 2017 were enrolled. The cross-sectional area of the muscle (cm2) at PMA was measured using computed tomography before radiation therapy. Baseline monocyte and lymphocyte counts were obtained from the complete blood count to calculate the LMR. Most of the patients (248/293, 84.6%) underwent breast conservation surgery. Lymph node involvement at diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.08; P < .001), low LMR (HR, 2.79; P = .007), and low PMA (HR, 3.80; P < .001) were independent poor prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. The mean DFS of sarcopenic and nonsarcopenic patients was 89.8 months and 118.8 months, respectively (P < .001). Sarcopenic patients with low LMR showed the worst outcomes, whereas nonsarcopenic patients with high LMR showed the best outcomes. Low PMA and low LMR were independent poor prognostic factors for DFS in patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer.
Keywords: breast neoplasms, disease-free survival, inflammation, prognosis, sarcopenia
1. Introduction
Breast cancer is the most prevalent type of cancer among women worldwide[1] and is the main cause of cancer-related mortality. Nevertheless, the overall survival rate of women with breast cancer is relatively high.[2] Therefore, predicting the prognosis of patients with breast cancer is important for determining appropriate treatment. The tumor node metastasis staging system and its molecular subtypes are powerful tools for predicting prognosis.[3,4] In addition, it has been reported that host factors, including age, race, menopausal status, and smoking history, can influence the prognosis of breast cancer.[5–7]
Sarcopenia is characterized by muscle failure, including skeletal muscle loss, which leads to reduced muscle function.[8,9] Poor performance can lead to adverse clinical outcomes such as longer hospital stays and increased mortality. Sarcopenia can arise from old age and chronic inflammation caused by comorbidities, especially cancer.[10]
Substantial evidence indicates that chronic low-grade inflammation may be an important etiology of sarcopenia.[11] Previous studies have shown that sarcopenia is associated with high levels of proinflammatory cytokines, which may be related to systemic inflammation that causes skeletal muscle degradation. This subsequently leads to decreased quality of life and shortened survival.[12] The lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), a converted inflammatory response-related biomarker, is associated with worse prognostic significance in patients with various types of malignancies.[13,14]
To assess muscle mass, different imaging techniques can be used, such as magnetic resonance imaging,[15] dual energy X-ray absorptiometry,[16] and CT.[17] CT is considered to be the standard imaging technique for assessing muscle mass and attenuation. It is assumed that the muscular cross-sectional area of the third lumbar vertebra (L3) is strongly correlated with total body muscle mass.[18] However, abdominal imaging is not routinely performed in breast cancer patients. To easily assess sarcopenia in patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer, we measured the sum of peri-PMA.
Among patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer after resection of the primary breast cancer, chest CT scans are routinely performed for radiotherapy. Using CT imaging, the skeletal muscle area was measured as the sum of the surrounding pectoralis muscle area (PMA). To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has focused on the association between sarcopenia evaluated using PMA and the survival of patients with breast cancer. In addition, blood samples were routinely obtained from the patients, and the inflammatory status could be easily evaluated by calculating the individual LMR. Herein, we evaluated the prognostic influence of sarcopenia assessed by PMA and LMR, reflecting inflammatory status, on survival among patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer.
2. Methods
2.1. Patients
A total of 293 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer, who underwent complete resection of the primary mass and postoperative radiotherapy between January 2011 and December 2017, were enrolled. The inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 18 years, pathologically confirmed stage I–III breast cancer, and resection of the primary mass and/or chemotherapy and radiation therapy at Gyeongsang National University Hospital (GNUH).
2.2. Muscle mass measurement
We used simulated CT scans acquired for the initial radiation therapy planning to measure the skeletal muscle area. Two centrally trained radiation oncologists quantified the cross-sectional area of the muscle based on anatomical features of the PMA (cm2). PMA includes the sum of the pectoralis major and pectoralis minor muscles at the level of the fourth thoracic vertebra (T4).
The pectoral muscle volume of the chest wall, as opposed to that in primary breast cancer, was delineated from 2 consecutive axial images at the T4 level and divided by the CT slice thickness (3.75 mm) to calculate the skeletal muscle surface area. Varian Eclipse contouring software (Varian Medial Systems, Palo Alto, CA) was used to delineate and calculate the surface area of the pectoralis muscle according to the thresholds of Hounsfield units (−29 to + 150) of skeletal muscle tissue (Supplemental Figure 1, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MD/I86).
2.3. Clinical data collection and definitions
Data were collected and analyzed via a retrospective chart review. Patients without primary pathological immunohistochemical information or primary clinical patient data were excluded. Breast cancer stage at diagnosis; pathologic findings such as immunohistochemical staining for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2); and breast cancer treatment data were obtained from the participants’ medical records. Baseline monocyte and lymphocyte counts were obtained from the complete blood count to calculate the LMR. Clinical data of the enrolled patients were also collected, including height, weight, body mass index, body surface area, and comorbidities, such as diabetes and dyslipidemia.
2.4. Definition of sarcopenia and systemic inflammation
To assess the discriminatory ability of sarcopenia for prognostic prediction, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed within the studied patient population and the area under the curve was calculated. The optimal cutoff value for the corresponding values was determined from the curve for the given sensitivity and specificity. Sarcopenia was defined as a PMA < 19.25 cm2. The cutoff value for sarcopenia was calculated using the ROC curve (Fig. 1). Furthermore, systemic inflammatory conditions were defined as an LMR < 3.95 based on the ROC curve.
Figure 1.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve by pectoralis muscle area (PMA). The cut-off value for sarcopenia was calculated using the ROC curve of PMA.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Standard descriptive and analytical methods were used to define the demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) was defined as the time from the date of diagnosis to the date of documented disease recurrence. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis to the date of death. Kaplan–Meier estimates were used in the analysis of time-to-event variables, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the median time-to-event were computed. Survival comparisons using univariate analysis were performed using the log-rank test. Cox’s proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analyses. Statistical significance was set at a P-value of less than .05, and all p-values corresponded to 2-sided tests. Statistical data were obtained using the SPSS software version 22 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
2.6. Ethics approval
The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of GNUH (GNUH 2021-08-024). Because this study was a retrospective database review without any intervention or use of human specimens, the requirement for informed consent was waived.
3. Results
3.1. Patient characteristics
The baseline demographic features of the 293 patients are summarized in Table 1. All eligible patients were female, and the median age of the patients was 51 years (range, 26–81 years). Based on tumor node metastasis staging, approximately half of all patients were diagnosed as T1 or N0 (164/293, 56% and 169/293, 57.7%, respectively). Two-thirds of the patients (197/293, 67.2%) were diagnosed with stage IIA or lower disease based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th staging system. Most patients (248/293, 84.6%) underwent breast conservation surgery. The median PMA of the patients was 16.05 cm2 (range, 7.2–29.08 cm2). There was no significant association between low PMA and low LMR (Table 1).
Table 1.
Baseline clinical features of 293 enrolled patients.
| Characteristics | No. of patients | (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age, year, median (range) | 51 (26–81) | |
| Body mass index, median (BMI, kg/m2, range) | 23.8 (17.6–38.1) | |
| Obesity based on BMI ≥ 23 | ||
| Yes | 166 | 56.6 |
| No | 127 | 43.4 |
| DM | ||
| Yes | 30 | 10.2 |
| No | 263 | 89.8 |
| Sarcopenia based on PMA | ||
| Yes | 37 | 12.6 |
| No | 256 | 87.4 |
| Systemic inflammation based on LMR | ||
| Yes | 74 | 25.3 |
| No | 219 | 74.7 |
| T stage | ||
| T1 | 164 | 56 |
| T2 | 118 | 40.3 |
| T3 | 9 | 3.0 |
| T4 | 2 | 0.7 |
| N stage | ||
| N0 | 169 | 57.7 |
| N1 | 65 | 22.2 |
| N2 | 33 | 11.3 |
| N3 | 26 | 8.8 |
| Stage (AJCC 8th edition) | ||
| IA | 17 | 5.8 |
| IB | 31 | 10.6 |
| IC | 71 | 24.2 |
| IIA | 78 | 26.6 |
| IIB | 32 | 10.9 |
| IIIA | 37 | 12.6 |
| IIIB | 1 | 0.4 |
| IIIC | 26 | 8.9 |
| Operation methods | ||
| Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) | 45 | 15.4 |
| Breast conserving surgery (BCS) | 248 | 84.6 |
| Chemotherapy | ||
| Yes | 245 | 83.6 |
| No | 48 | 16.4 |
| Luminal type | ||
| Luminal A | 174 | 59.4 |
| Luminal B | 37 | 12.6 |
| HER2-enriched | 26 | 8.9 |
| Basal-like | 56 | 19.1 |
| Duration of follow-up, month, median (range) | 60.1 (23.7–122.1) |
AJCC = American Joint Committee on Cancer; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, LMR = lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, PMA = pectoralis muscle area.
3.2. Survival analysis
Over a median follow-up duration of 60.1 (23.7–122.1) months, 34 patients relapsed and 17 patients died. For all 293 patients, the mean DFS and OS were 109.7 (95% CI, 105.8–113.6) and 115.6 (95% CI, 112.7–118.6) months, respectively. Median DFS and OS were not reached during the follow-up period.
We evaluated DFS according to the tumor characteristics and patient factors. Patients with tumor size > 2 cm and those who had cancer cells in their lymph nodes had significantly shorter DFS (mean 98.6 vs 114.2 months, p = -0.005 and 93.8 vs 117.6 months, P < .001, respectively; Figure 2a and 2b). Patients aged < 50 years had significantly shorter DFS; however, there was no significant difference in DFS according to obesity (103.7 vs 113.4 months, p = −0.034, and 102 vs 112.9 months, p = −0.134, respectively; Fig. 2c and 2d).
Figure 2.
Kaplan–Meier curves for disease-free survival (DFS) by (A) tumor size, (B) lymph node status, (C) age, and (D) obesity.
We evaluated the prognostic effect of systemic inflammatory factors, including C-reactive protein level, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and platelet/lymphocyte ratio. However, there was no statistically significant relationship between DFS and inflammatory markers.
As shown in Fig. 3, Sarcopenia based on PMA significantly shortened DFS in the enrolled patients (89.8 vs 118.8 months, P < .001). The mean DFS of inflammatory and noninflammatory patients based on LMR were 102.3 months (95% CI, 93–111.7 months) and 106.6 months (95% CI, 102.9–110.3 months), respectively (P = .011). Additionally, the cohort was divided into 4 groups according to sarcopenia and inflammatory status, and survival rates were compared between these groups (Fig. 4). Regardless of LMR status, patients in the PMA-sarcopenia group had a poorer prognosis than those in the nonsarcopenia group. Sarcopenic patients with a low LMR showed worse outcomes in DFS, while nonsarcopenic patients with a high LMR showed the best outcome in mean DFS (74.8 vs 109.6 months, respectively, P < .001).
Figure 3.
Disease-free survival (DFS) stratified by baseline sarcopenia among the enrolled patients (n = 293). The mean DFS of sarcopenic patients was lower than that of nonsarcopenic patients (89.8 months and 118.8 months, respectively, P < .001) according to the pectoral muscle area (PMA).
Figure 4.
Disease-free survival (DFS) stratified by baseline sarcopenia and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR). Nonsarcopenic and noninflammatory patients were the most favorable group regarding DFS, whereas sarcopenic and inflammatory patients had worse outcomes.
3.3. Predictors of survival
Univariate comparisons revealed that the relapse of nonmetastatic breast cancer was significantly influenced by the positive lymph node stage at diagnosis, low LMR, and sarcopenia status (Table 2). In multivariate analysis, positive lymph node stage, low LMR, and sarcopenia status were independent poor prognostic factors for DFS. Univariate analysis showed that OS, N stage at diagnosis, low LMR, and sarcopenia defined by PMA were associated with a poor prognosis. N stage at diagnosis, low LMR, and sarcopenic status were confirmed as independent poor prognostic factors using multivariate analysis (Table 3). To clarify the correlation of LMR and PMA, we performed Chi-square test, and the result shown that there was no statistical correlation between the 2 factors (P = .336).
Table 2.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for relapse of nonmetastatic breast cancer.
| Characteristics | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) |
P value | HR (95% CI) |
P value | |
| Age (<50 vs ≥ 50 years) | 0.47 (0.21–1.06) |
.069 | - | |
| T stage (T1 vs T2–4) | 1.34 (0.62–2.9) |
.460 | - | |
| N stage (N0 vs N1–3) |
4.41 (1.75–11.09) |
.002 |
5.08 (2.16–11.92) |
<.001 |
| Operation method (MRM vs BCS) | 0.98 (0.45–2.14) |
.957 | ||
| Chemotherapy (no vs yes) | 2.53 (0.2–6.25) |
.83 | ||
| DM (no vs yes) | 1.61 (0.67–3.89) |
.291 | ||
| Obesity (no vs yes) | 1.25 (0.59–2.62) |
.56 | ||
| LMR (≥3.95 vs < 3.95) |
2.63 (1.04–6.68) |
.011 | 2.78 (1.32–5.91) | .007 |
| PMA (nonsarcopenic vs sarcopenic) |
3.63 (1.07–12.35) |
.038 | 3.80 (1.85–7.8) | <.001 |
BCS = breast conserving surgery, CI = confidence interval, DM = diabetes mellitus, HR = hazard ratio, LMR = lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, MRM = modified radical mastectomy, PMA = pectoralis muscle area.
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for overall survival of nonmetastatic breast cancer patients.
| Characteristics | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) |
P value | HR (95% CI) |
P value | |
| Age (<50 vs ≥ 50 years) | 0.49 (0.15–1.64) | .251 | - | |
| T stage (T1 vs T2–4) | 2.03 (0.59–7.05) | .263 | - | |
| N stage (N0 vs N1–3) | 12.98 (1.55–108.69) | .018 |
19.09 (2.47–147.8) |
.005 |
| Operation method (MRM vs BCS) | 0.82 (0.28–2.39) | .711 | ||
| Chemotherapy (no vs yes) | 2.18 (0.3–7.8) | .98 | ||
| DM (no vs yes) | 1.58 (0.44–5.64) | .484 | ||
| Obesity (no vs yes) | 1.07 (0.34–3.44) | .903 | ||
| LMR (≥3.95 vs < 3.95) | 2.38 (0.79–7.09) | .011 |
3.31 (1.24–8.89) |
.017 |
| PMA (nonsarcopenic vs sarcopenic) | 10.07 (0.95–106.22) | .05 |
6.28 (2.36–16.72) |
<.001 |
BCS = breast-conserving surgery, CI = confidence interval, DMHR = hazard ratio, LMR = lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, MRM = modified radical mastectomy, PMA = pectoralis muscle area.
4. Discussion
In this study, we investigated the individual and combined prognostic effects of sarcopenia using PMA and systemic inflammatory status using LMR on DFS in women with nonmetastatic breast cancer. Multivariate analysis revealed sarcopenia and low LMR in predicting the prognosis of patients with shortened DFS. Although we found that combined sarcopenia and low LMR were significantly related to poor survival, sarcopenia had a greater influence on DFS than the inflammatory status based on low LMR.
To control the relapse risk in patients with breast cancer, it is crucial to predict the risk of disease relapse or patient death, and many efforts have been made to identify simple and low-cost prognostic factors. Therefore, many studies have investigated the usefulness of body composition measured by CT and peripheral blood parameters that reflect systemic inflammation as prognostic factors in women with breast cancer.[19,20]
To identify easily measurable prognostic factors among patients with breast cancer, we measured the sum of the peri-PMA to assess sarcopenia in patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. As the pectoralis muscle is easy to measure, its area can be standardized across cohorts and has been reported to be associated with sarcopenia in patients with lung cancer.[21,22] Our study suggests that this measure may be a good surrogate marker for sarcopenia in patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer.
Another important finding of the present study was that patients with a low LMR had worse outcomes in both the univariate and multivariate analyses. Moreover, patients with both low PMA and low LMR had significantly lower DFS than other patients, indicating that a combination of these factors can provide a stronger prediction of survival outcomes. The relationship between inflammatory parameters and prognosis of patients with cancer has been reported in previous studies. These parameters are easy to measure by collecting peripheral blood samples and can reliably reflect individualized systemic inflammatory status.[23] A low LMR, which indicates systemic inflammatory status and worse survival outcomes, has been reported.[24–26] Lymphocytes can infiltrate the tumor microenvironment and express various factors such as tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, thereby affecting tumor immune responses.[27–29] Monocytes can differentiate into tumor-associated macrophages, which have immunosuppressive effects and promote angiogenesis, tumor spread, and metastasis.[30] Therefore, the LMR level can accurately identify the tumor immune response and can be considered a potential prognostic marker.
A major limitation of this study was its retrospective design, which made it difficult to generalize the results. Despite its retrospective design, the differences in DFS with or without sarcopenia and a low LMR were striking. Second, muscle strength measurements were not possible because of the study design. Additionally, the mass of the pectoralis muscle was measured by a trained researcher, which may not accurately reflect the entire muscle volume and the cutoff value of PMA for sarcopenia, which is defined below the ROC curve. The cutoff value of PMA for sarcopenia should be validated in future studies.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, this is the first study to show that baseline sarcopenia assessed using PMA and low LMR is associated with poor prognosis in patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer who received adjuvant radiotherapy. This finding underscores the importance of studying the prognostic role of sarcopenia, especially in combination with parameters reflecting systemic inflammation, in patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. These factors are expected to provide a new method for predicting the risk of relapse in patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. Further prospective studies are required to confirm our results.
Authors contributions
Conceptualization: Haa-Na Song, Bae-Kwon Jeong.
Data curation: Haa-Na Song, In Bong Ha.
Formal analysis: Ki Min Kang.
Methodology: Hoon Sik Choi.
Validation: Ju Yeon Kim, Jae Myung Kim, Jin Hee Jeong.
Writing—original draft: Haa-Na Song.
Writing—review and editing: Bae-Kwon Jeong.
Supplementary Material
Abbreviations:
- CI =
- confidence intervals
- CT =
- computed tomography
- DFS =
- disease-free survival
- LMR =
- lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio
- OS =
- overall survival
- PMA =
- pectoralis muscle area
- ROC =
- receiver operating characteristic
- TIL =
- tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article.
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
This research was funded by a grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (grant number NRF-2020R1I1A3057533).
The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (revised 2013). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Gyeongsang National University Hospital (GNUH 2021-08-024). Because this study was a retrospective database review without any intervention or use of human specimens, the requirement for informed consent was waived.
How to cite this article: Song H-N, Kim JY, Kim JM, Kang KM, Choi HS, Jeong JH, Ha IB, Jeong B-K. Sarcopenia using pectoralis muscle area and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) are independent prognostic factors in patients for nonmetastatic breast cancer. Medicine 2022;101:49(e32229).
Contributor Information
Haa-Na Song, Email: songhaana@naver.com.
Ju Yeon Kim, Email: jmjidia@hanmail.net.
Jae Myung Kim, Email: jmjidia@hanmail.net.
Ki Mun Kang, Email: jsk92@gnu.ac.kr.
Hoon Sik Choi, Email: hoonsik00@hanmail.net.
Jin Hee Jeong, Email: gnuradoncology@gmail.com.
In Bong Ha, Email: zeusbong@hanmail.net.
References
- [1].Chen MT, Sun HF, Zhao Y, et al. Comparison of patterns and prognosis among distant metastatic breast cancer patients by age groups: a SEER population-based analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:9254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Sighoko D, Hunt BR, Irizarry B, et al. Disparity in breast cancer mortality by age and geography in 10 racially diverse US cities. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018;53:178–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006;295:2492–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Kohler BA, Sherman RL, Howlader N, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2011, featuring incidence of breast cancer subtypes by race/ethnicity, poverty, and state. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Swain SM, Jeong JH, Geyer CE, Jr., et al. Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2053–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Keenan T, Moy B, Mroz EA, et al. Comparison of the genomic landscape between primary breast cancer in african american versus white women and the association of racial differences with tumor recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3621–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Passarelli MN, Newcomb PA, Hampton JM, et al. Cigarette smoking before and after breast cancer diagnosis: mortality from breast cancer and smoking-related diseases. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1315–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Fearon K, Strasser F, Anker SD, et al. Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:489–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Del Fabbro E, Parsons H, Warneke CL, et al. The relationship between body composition and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with operable breast cancer. Oncologist. 2012;17:1240–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Deluche E, Leobon S, Desport JC, et al. Impact of body composition on outcome in patients with early breast cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:861–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Bano G, Trevisan C, Carraro S, et al. Inflammation and sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2017;96:10–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Gadelha AB, Cesari M, Correa HL, et al. Effects of pre-dialysis resistance training on sarcopenia, inflammatory profile, and anemia biomarkers in older community-dwelling patients with chronic kidney disease: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urol Nephrol. 2021;53:2137–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Eo WK, Kwon S, Koh SB, et al. The lymphocyte-monocyte ratio predicts patient survival and aggressiveness of endometrial cancer. J Cancer. 2016;7:538–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Fulop ZZ, Gurzu S, Fulop RL, et al. Prognostic impact of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, in patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective study of 1052 patients. J Pers Med. 2020;10:173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Schweitzer L, Geisler C, Pourhassan M, et al. What is the best reference site for a single MRI slice to assess whole-body skeletal muscle and adipose tissue volumes in healthy adults? Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102:58–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Sergi G, De Rui M, Stubbs B, et al. Measurement of lean body mass using bioelectrical impedance analysis: a consideration of the pros and cons. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017;29:591–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].van der Werf A, Langius JAE, de van der Schueren MAE, et al. Percentiles for skeletal muscle index, area and radiation attenuation based on computed tomography imaging in a healthy Caucasian population. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72:288–96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Kim EY, Kim YS, Park I, et al. Prognostic significance of CT-determined sarcopenia in patients with small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:1795–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Caan BJ, Cespedes Feliciano EM, Prado CM, et al. Association of muscle and adiposity measured by computed tomography with survival in patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:798–804. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Rier HN, Jager A, Sleijfer S, et al. Low muscle attenuation is a prognostic factor for survival in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with first line palliative chemotherapy. Breast. 2017;31:9–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Go SI, Park MJ, Song HN, et al. Sarcopenia and inflammation are independent predictors of survival in male patients newly diagnosed with small cell lung cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:2075–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Sun C, Anraku M, Kawahara T, et al. Respiratory strength and pectoralis muscle mass as measures of sarcopenia: Relation to outcomes in resected non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;12:S0022-5223(20)33059-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Li CW, Yu K, Shyh-Chang N, et al. Circulating factors associated with sarcopenia during ageing and after intensive lifestyle intervention. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019;10:586–600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Ma Y, Zhang J, Chen X. Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio is associated with the poor prognosis of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Manag Res. 2021;13:1571–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].He J, Lv P, Yang X, et al. Pretreatment lymphocyte to monocyte ratio as a predictor of prognosis in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. Tumour Biol. 2016;37:9037–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Hu RJ, Liu Q, Ma JY, et al. Preoperative lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio predicts breast cancer outcome: a meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2018;484:1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Salgado R, Denkert C, Demaria S, et al. International TILs Working Group 2014. The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group 2014. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:259–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Adams S, Gray RJ, Demaria S, et al. Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancers from two phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trials: ECOG 2197 and ECOG 1199. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2959–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Savas P, Salgado R, Denkert C, et al. Clinical relevance of host immunity in breast cancer: from TILs to the clinic. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13:228–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Kara S, Yildirim N, Ozer A, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase-2, tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase-2, and transforming growth factor beta 1 in the aqueous humor and serum of patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:305–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.