Vol 20, No 4 (2024)
Research paper
Published online: 2023-10-25

open access

Page views 398
Article views/downloads 278
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

The relationship between inflammation markers, positron emission tomography/computed tomography parameters and disease prognosis in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients

Esra Pirinççi1, Zeynep Oruç2, Senar Ebinç3, Yunus Güzel4, Halil Kömek4, Mehmet Küçüköner5, Zuhat Urakçı2, Muhammet Ali Kaplan2, Bekir Taşdemir6, Abdurrahman Işıkdoğan2
Oncol Clin Pract 2024;20(4):245-254.

Abstract

Introduction. Inflammation is known to be related to the development, spread, prognosis, and treatment response in cancer patients. Our study aimed to evaluate the correlation between inflammation indices and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) parameters and investigate their relationship with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients diagnosed with stage-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Material and methods. Demographic, clinicopathological, laboratory, and PET/CT data of 179 patients diagnosed with stage-IV NSCLC who presented to the Oncology Department of Dicle University, Faculty of Medicine between 2010–2020 were retrieved from patient files and the hospital database system. 

Results. The median age at diagnosis was 64 (27–87) years. All patients included in the study had NSCLC: 72.6% had adenocarcinoma, 21.2% had squamous cell carcinoma, and 6.1% had other histological types. Of the 78 patients who were subjected to molecular analysis, 26 (33.3%) were EGFR-mutation positive. During the 10-month median follow-up, median first-line PFS was 6 months (95% CI 5.00–6.99), and median OS was 10 months (95% CI 7.8–12.1). The multivariate analysis performed for first-line PFS determined hemoglobin (HR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.003–1.02; p = 0.005) and PET total lesion glycolysis (TLG) (HR = 1.002; 95% CI 1.001–1.003; p = 0.003) values as independent prognostic factors. The multivariate analysis for OS determined positive EGFR mutation status (HR = 0.385; 95% CI 0.213–0.696; p = 0,014) and performance status (HR = 1.88; 95% CI 1.092–3.238; p = 0,008) as independent prognostic factors. 

Conclusions. Our study determined the hemoglobin level and PET TLG from PET/CT parameters to be independent prognostic factors for PFS, and performance status and EGFR mutation positivity to be independent prognostic factors for OS.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Oncology in Clinical Practice

DOI: 10.5603/ocp.97451

Copyright © 2024 Via Medica

ISSN 2450–1654

e-ISSN 2450–6478

The relationship between inflammation markers, positron emission tomography/ /computed tomography parameters and disease prognosis in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients

Esra Pirinççi1Zeynep Oruç2Senar Ebinç3Yunus Güzel4Halil Kömek4Mehmet Küçüköner5Zuhat Urakçı2Muhammet Ali Kaplan2Bekir Taşdemir5Abdurrahman Işıkdoğan2
1Department of Hematology, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Türkiye
2Department of Medical Oncology, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Türkiye
3Department of Medical Oncology, Gazi Yasargil Training and Research Hospital, Diyarbakır, Türkiye
4Department of Nuclear Medicine, Gazi Yasargil Training and Research Hospital, Diyarbakır, Türkiye
5Department of Nuclear Medicine, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Türkiye

Address for correspondence:

Senar Ebinç, MD

Department of Medical Oncology,

Gazi Yasargil Training and Research

Hospital

Billstreet, Sur, 21280, Diyarbakır, Turkey

tel.: +90 412 258 00 60 (2612)

e-mail: senarebinc@gmail.com

Received: 16.09.2023 Accepted: 25.09.2023 Early publication date: 25.10.2023

ABSTRACT
Introduction. Inflammation is known to be related to the development, spread, prognosis, and treatment response in cancer patients. Our study aimed to evaluate the correlation between inflammation indices and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) parameters and investigate their relationship with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients diagnosed with stage-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Material and methods. Demographic, clinicopathological, laboratory, and PET/CT data of 179 patients diagnosed with stage-IV NSCLC who presented to the Oncology Department of Dicle University, Faculty of Medicine between 2010–2020 were retrieved from patient files and the hospital database system.
Results. The median age at diagnosis was 64 (27–87) years. All patients included in the study had NSCLC: 72.6% had adenocarcinoma, 21.2% had squamous cell carcinoma, and 6.1% had other histological types. Of the 78 patients who were subjected to molecular analysis, 26 (33.3%) were EGFR-mutation positive. During the 10-month median follow-up, median first-line PFS was 6 months (95% CI 5.00–6.99), and median OS was 10 months (95% CI 7.8–12.1). The multivariate analysis performed for first-line PFS determined hemoglobin (HR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.003–1.02; p = 0.005) and PET total lesion glycolysis (TLG) (HR = 1.002; 95% CI 1.001–1.003; p = 0.003) values as independent prognostic factors. The multivariate analysis for OS determined positive EGFR mutation status (HR = 0.385; 95% CI 0.213–0.696; p = 0,014) and performance status (HR = 1.88; 95% CI 1.092–3.238; p = 0,008) as independent prognostic factors.
Conclusions. Our study determined the hemoglobin level and PET TLG from PET/CT parameters to be independent prognostic factors for PFS, and performance status and EGFR mutation positivity to be independent prognostic factors for OS.
Keywords: inflammation, non-small-cell lung cancer, PET/CT
Oncol Clin Pract 2024; 20, 4: 245–254

Introduction

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is among the cancers with the highest rates of mortality despite the treatment advances in recent years [1]. Although several prognostic factors have been identified in advanced NSCLC patients, the search for more precise prognostic factors to determine the course of the disease, optimize treatment choices, and avoid unnecessary treatment continues [2, 3]. Systemic inflammation has been shown to be involved in the development and progression of lung cancer. Elevated systemic inflammation indices indicate a poor prognosis in all cancer patients [4]. Another area that is being explored in relation to cancer-related inflammation concerns parameters obtained from positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging. The relationship between fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT (FDG-PET/CT) tumor metabolism markers and systemic inflammation has been demonstrated in a variety of cancers [5]. However, studies on the relationship between inflammation and PET/CT parameters in NSCLC are scarce.

Positron emission tomography-computed tomography is used in diagnosis, staging, and evaluation of treatment response in lung cancer. The standardized uptake value (SUVmax-mean) indicates tumor FDG uptake, which is prognostic in many cancers including lung cancer [3]. To date, a wide variety of inflammation parameters have been used to evaluate the inflammatory state in cancer [6]. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and c-reactive protein (CRP) are widely used markers of systemic inflammation. Laboratory parameters are easily evaluated, repeatable, and inexpensive tests that are easy to use in daily practice. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between inflammation indices and PET/CT parameters and investigate their relationship with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients diagnosed with disseminated (stage IV) NSCLC.

Material and methods

For this study, patients who presented to the Oncology Clinic of Dicle University, Faculty of Medicine between 2010–2020, were followed up for a diagnosis of NSCLC. Their diagnostic PET/CT imaging was performed in the Nuclear Medicine Department of Dicle University, Faculty of Medicine or the Nuclear Medicine Department of Gazi Yaşargil Training and Research Hospital and was retrospectively screened. Files, examination results, and PET/CT scans of a total of 179 patients with NSCLC diagnosis confirmed by histopathological exams as stage IV according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition tumor/node/metastasis (TNM) staging, who met the study criteria, were examined. Patients with acute and/or chronic inflammatory diseases [acute/chronic infection, collagen vascular diseases (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)] were excluded from the study.

Patient sex, age, history of smoking, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, presence of comorbid diseases, histopathological type, metastasis sites, diameter and localization of the primary tumor, date of pathological diagnosis, complete blood count parameters (neutrophil, lymphocyte, platelet, hemoglobin), NLR, PLR levels, PET/CT parameters [Lung SUVmax, Lung SUVmean, Lung Bnmax, Lung Bnmean, Lung total lesion glycolysis (TLG), Lung metabolic tumor volume (MTV), PET highest SUVmax, PET highest SUVmean, PET highest Bnmax, PET highest Bnmean, PET TLG, PET MTV], molecular analysis and immunohistochemistry (IHC) results (EGFR mutations and ALK or ROS1 fusions, PDL-1 status), treatment options, treatment outcomes, and final status were recorded.

Hematological parameters were obtained from routine blood tests. Blood tests performed within 28 days before the initial treatment were taken into consideration. The indices (NLR, PLR) used in the study were calculated according to the formulae from previously published studies. The PLR was obtained by division of the absolute platelet count by the absolute lymphocyte count. NLR was obtained by division of the absolute neutrophil count by the absolute lymphocyte count.

Progression-free survival was defined as the length of time from the diagnosis to progression or the date of death, while OS was defined as the length of time from the diagnosis to death from any cause. In the evaluation of the patients in terms of progression, imaging performed after 3–4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy or after 3 months in patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) was taken as the basis.

Ethical approval was obtained for this study from Dicle University Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee (Date/number: 06.05.2021/357).

Analysis of imaging

All patients were asked to stop food intake at least 6 hours before the scan. If they received intravenous (i.v.) glucose, it was stopped. Blood sugar was confirmed as 140 mg/dL in all patients before 18F-FDG injection. One hour from 18F-FDG injection (3.5–5.5 MBq/kg), computed tomography (CT) images [120 kV, 80 mAs/slice, 700 mm transaxial field of view (FOV), no gap, 64 × 0.625 mm collimation, 1.4 pitch, 0.5 s rotation time, 3.3 mm slice thickness, and 512 × 512 matrix] from vertex to mid-femur were obtained in the supine position using a 4-ring, 20-cm axial FOV Discovery IQ PET/CT device (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, US). PET [20 cm 3D FOV, ordered subset expectation maximization algorithm (OSEM), 5 iterations/12 subsets, full width at half maximum (FWHM) 3 mm] images were obtained starting from 2.5 minutes per bed position. All patients without contraindication were given 1.5 mL/kg i.v. contrast before CT imaging. Attenuation was obtained by corrected emission images and contrast or non-contrast CT data.

All 18F-FDG PET/CT images were evaluated by a nuclear medicine specialist with 10 years of experience using PET Volume Computer-Assisted Reading (PET-VCAR; GE Healthcare) and Advantage Workstation software (version 4.7; GE Healthcare). Volumes of interest (VOI) were drawn manually to include the primary lung lesion, regional lymph nodes, and distant metastases (liver, lung, bone, etc.) on three planes. MTV and TLG (MTV × SUVmean) values were obtained for each lesion using a 40% SUV threshold. MTV and TLG levels were obtained from all lesions, and whole-body MTV (WBMTV) and whole-body TLG (WBTLG) were calculated.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25 software (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY, US). In the comparison of two independent groups, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for quantitative data. Spearman’s rho was preferred for analysis of correlations between the variables. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson chi-square and/or Fisher’s exact tests. The effects of PFS and OS parameters were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier or Mantel-Coxlog-rank tests. Cox regression analysis was used on significant independent variables to measure the effects of prognostic variables on survival. Variables were analyzed at a 95% confidence interval, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

This study included a total of 179 patients: 151 (84.4%) males and 28 (15.6%) females. The median age of the included patients was 64 (27–87) years at diagnosis. Of the 173 patients whose ECOG performance score at diagnosis could be retrieved, 69.9% (n = 121) had performance status (PS) of 0–1. All patients included in this study had a pathological diagnosis of NSCLC — 130 (72.6%) had adenocarcinoma, 38 (21.2%) had squamous cell carcinoma, and 11 (6.1%) had other histological subtypes. Of the 78 patients who were subjected to molecular analysis, 26 (33.3%) were EGFR-mutation positive. Of the 29 patients who were also examined for other driver mutations, four (13.8%) were ALK-fusion positive.

When the patients were evaluated with regard to comorbidities, 53 (29.6%) had a history of comorbid diseases — 14 (23.7%) had diabetes mellitus, 23 (38.9%) had hypertension, and 16 (27.1%) had coronary artery disease.

All of the 179 patients had stage IV disease. When the primary tumor localizations were examined, 101 (58.7%) had the primary tumor in the right lung. The history of previous operations was positive in three patients. Evaluation of metastatic disease sites revealed 86 (48%) patients with multiple metastases, 26 (14.5%) patients with bone metastasis, 21 (11.7%) with lung metastasis, 9 (5.1%) patients with adrenal metastasis, 8 (4.5%) patients with brain metastasis, 6 (3.4%) patients with liver metastasis, and 23 (12.8%) patients with involvement of other organs.

The majority of patients — 127 (84.6%) — had received combination and/or single-agent cytotoxic chemotherapy as first-line therapy. A total of 23 patients received tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) as targeted therapy, with 21 (14%) receiving erlotinib, and 2 (1.4%) receiving alectinib (ALK inhibitor). Twenty-nine patients (16.2%) had not received therapy due to refusal or poor performance status. Of the 60 patients who could advance to second-line treatment, 46 (76.7%) received chemotherapy, 4 (6.7%) received erlotinib, 2 (3.3%) patients received osimertinib, 1 (1.7%) patient received alectinib, and 7 (11.7%) patients received immune checkpoint inhibitors. The treatments received by the 10 patients who could advance to third-line treatment included chemotherapy in 7 (70%) patients and immunotherapy in 3 (30%) patients. Detailed baseline demographic and clinicopathological data of the patients are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. General patient characteristics

Parameters

n = 179

[%]

Age (median, range)

64 (27–87)

Smoking (n = 151)

Yes

119

78.8

No

32

21.2

Sex

Female

28

15.6

Male

151

84.4

ECOG performance status (n = 173)

0–1

121

69.9

≥ 2

52

30.1

Comorbidity

53

29.6

Diabetes mellitus

14

7.8

Hypertension

23

12.8

Ischemic heart disease

16

8.9

Histopathology

Adenocarcinoma

130

72.6

Squamous cell carcinoma

38

21.2

Others

11

6.1

Primary tumor localization (n = 172)

Right hemithorax

101

58.7

Left hemithorax

71

41.3

Metastasis area

Bone

26

14.5

Lung

21

11.7

Surrenal

9

5.1

Brain

8

4.5

Liver

6

3.4

Multiple

86

48

Others

23

12.8

EGFR mutation (n = 78)

Negative

52

66.7

Positive

26

33.3

ALK fusion (n = 29)

Negative

25

86.2

Positive

4

13.8

First-line treatment (n = 150)

Chemotherapy

127

84.6

Erlotinib

21

14

Alectinib

2

1.4

Second-line treatment (n = 60)

Chemotherapy

46

76.7

Erlotinib

4

6.7

Alectinib

1

1.7

Osimertinib

2

3.3

Immunotherapy

7

11.6

Third-line treatment (n = 10)

Chemotherapy

7

70

Immunotherapy

3

30

During the 10-month median follow-up duration, 16 (89.9%) patients died and 18 (10.1%) survived. Median OS was 10 months (95% CI 7.8–12.1), and median PFS after first-line therapy was 6 months (95% CI 5.00–6.99). In these patients, those with EGFR mutations had median OS of 14 months and median PFS of 9 months. Patients without driver mutations had median OS of 8 months and median first-line PFS of 5 months.

In the univariate survival analysis that evaluated the effects of general patient characteristics, laboratory parameters, PET/CT parameters on first-line PFS, hemoglobin (p = 0.012) from hemogram parameters, PET TLG (p = 0.001) and PET lung TLG (p = 0.046) from imaging parameters were determined to be associated with first-line PFS. Meanwhile, the p-values determined for variables such as NLR (p = 0.09), PET MTV (p = 0.079), PET lung MTV (p = 0.094), and positive EGFR mutation status (p = 0.060) were found to approach statistical significance. When evaluated in multivariate analysis, the hemoglobin level (HR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.003–1.02; p = 0.005) and PET TLG (HR = 1.002; 95% CI 1.001–1.003; p = 0.003) were found to be independent prognostic factors predicting first-line PFS (Tab. 2).

Table 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis results in terms of progression-free survival

Univariate analysis

Multivariate analysis

Parameters

HR

95% CI

p

HR

95% CI

p

Age

1.006

0.992–1.021

0.337

Sex (male*/female)

0.772

0.468–1.274

0.311

Smoking (no*/yes)

1.273

0.765–2.118

0.353

ECOG performance status (0–1*/≥ 2)

0.75

0.451–1.255

0.276

Comorbidity (no*/yes)

1.804

0.629–5.172

0.272

Primary tumor localization

0.833

0.551–1.260

0.387

Primary tumor diameters

1.00

0.998–1.002

0.872

Metastasis area

1.010

0.916–1.114

0.844

Neutrophil count

1.017

0.954–1.085

0.606

Lymphocyte count

0.88

0.706–1.098

0.257

Platelet count

1.00

0.90–1.001

0.513

Hemoglobin level

1.009

1.002–1.017

0.012

1.01

1.003–1.02

0.005

PLR

1.00

0.998–1.001

0.947

NLR

1.06

0.991–1.135

0.09

PET lung SUVmax

1.012

0.986–1.039

0.367

PET lung SUVmean

1.033

0.981–1.088

0.218

PET lung Bnmax

1.017

0.976–1.059

0.427

PET lung Bnmean

0.039

0.958–1.128

0.354

PET lung MTV

1.002

1.00–1.003

0.094

PET lung TLG

1.002

1.00–1.003

0.046

1.001

1.00–1.005

0.101

PET Highest SUVmax

0.995

0.98–1.011

0.557

PET Highest SUVmean

1.002

0.974–1.031

0.896

PET Highest Bnmax

1.018

0.982–1.056

0.325

PET Highest Bnmean

0.996

0.97–1.023

0.779

PET MTV

1.001

1.00–1.002

0.079

PET TLG

1.002

1.001–1.003

0.001

1.002

1.001–1.003

0.003

EGFR mutation (no*/yes)

0.547

0.292–1.025

0.06

In the univariate survival analysis that evaluated the effects of the general characteristics, laboratory parameters, and PET/CT parameters of the patients on overall survival, performance status (p = 0.013), neutrophil level at diagnosis (p = 0.026), NLR (p = 0.008), PET MTV (p = 0.016), PET TLG (p = 0.018), and positive EGFR mutation status (p = 0.011) were found to be associated with OS. The p-values determined for variables such as sex (p = 0.088) and hemoglobin (p = 0.081) approached statistical significance. When evaluated in multivariate analysis, positive EGFR mutation status (HR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.21–0.69; p = 0.02) and performance status (HR =1.88; 95% CI 1.09–3.23; p = 0.023) were found to be independent prognostic factors predicting OS. Positive EGFR mutation status was associated with good overall survival while ECOG performance status ≥ 2 was associated with poor overall survival (Tab. 3). Significant cut-off values could not be determined for PET/CT parameters.

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis results in terms of overall survival

Univariate analysis

Multivariate analysis

Parameters

HR

95% CI

p

HR

95% CI

p

Age

1.01

0.996–1.023

0.155

Sex (male*/female)

0.683

0.44–1.05

0.088

Smoking (no*/yes)

1.406

0.920–2.149

0.115

Performance status (0–1*/≥ 2)

1.54

1.096–2.162

0.013

1.88

1.092–3.238

0.023

Comorbidity (no*/yes)

1.20

0.606–2.374

0.601

Primary Tumor Localization

1.066

0.773–1.471

0.696

Primary Tumor diameters

1.00

0.998–1.002

0.69

Metastasis area

1.01

0.916–1.114

0.844

1.119

0.945–1.325

0.194

Neutrophil count

1.063

1.007–1.122

0.026

1.056

0.935–1.193

0.378

Lymphocyte count

0.89

0.738–1.095

0.291

Platelet count

1.00

0.90–1.001

0.449

Hemoglobin level

1.006

0.99–1.013

0.081

PLR

1.00

0.90–1.001

0.985

NLR

1.071

1.018–1.127

0.008

1.034

0.911–1.174

0.603

PET lung SUVmax

1.013

0.989–1.037

0.287

PET lung SUVmean

1.032

0.986–1.080

0.174

PET lung Bnmax

1.022

0.986–1.059

0.23

PET lung Bnmean

0.054

0.981–1.132

0.151

PET lung MTV

1.001

1.00–1.003

0.150

PET lung TLG

1.001

1.00–1.002

0.122

PET highest SUVmax

0.997

0.982–1.011

0.661

PET highest SUVmean

0.998

0.971–1.025

0.862

PET highest Bnmax

1.016

0.985–1.047

0.324

PET highest Bnmean

0.995

0.97–1.021

0.725

PET MTV

1.001

1.00–1.002

0.016

1.001

1.00–1.003

0.171

PET TLG

1.002

1.01–1.003

0.018

1.01

1.00–1.03

0.203

EGFR mutation (no*/yes)

0.484

0.277–0.845

0.011

0.385

0.213–0.696

0.02

In our study, the hemoglobin level showed a negative correlation with almost all PET/CT parameters while lymphocyte at diagnosis did not have significant correlations with all PET/CT parameters. The results concerning the correlations between inflammation markers and PET/CT metabolic parameters are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Correlation between positron emission tomography (PET) parameters and inflammation indices

Neutrophil

Lymphocyte

PLT

HB

PLR

NLR

PET lung SUVmax

r

0.169*

–0.022

0.071

–0.190*

0.073

0.147

p

0.025

0.773

0.35

0.012

0.333

0.051

PET lung SUVmean

r

0.146

–0.039

0.037

–0.143

0.057

0.138

p

0.053

0.612

0.63

0.059

0.452

0.069

PET lung Bnmax

r

0.166*

–0.014

0.159*

–0.168*

0.174*

0.152*

p

0.029

0.855

0.035

0.026

0.021

0.044

PET lung Bnmean

r

0.121

–0.041

0.106

–0.125

0.148

0.14

p

0.11

0.59

0.163

0.1

0.05

0.064

PET lung MTV

r

0.1

–0.001

0.191*

–0.207**

0.139

0.079

p

0.187

0.994

0.011

0.006

0.066

0.297

PET lung TLG

r

0.152*

–0.038

0.189*

–0.221**

0.167*

0.144

p

0.045

0.62

0.012

0.003

0.027

0.057

PET Highest SUVmax

r

0.191*

–0.043

0.051

–0.197**

0.1

0.155*

p

0.01

0.565

0.498

0.008

0.184

0.038

PET Highest SUVmean

r

0.180*

–0.123

0.04

–0.189*

0.142

0.217**

p

0.016

0.101

0.594

0.011

0.058

0.004

PET Highest Bnmax

r

0.180*

–0.032

0.13

–0.189*

0.184*

0.159*

p

0.016

0.669

0.084

0.011

0.014

0.033

PET Highest Bnmean

r

0.149*

–0.091

0.119

–0.161*

0.216**

0.191*

p

0.046

0.225

0.114

0.031

0.004

0.011

PET MTV

r

0.143

–0.096

0.122

–0.230**

0.169*

0.192**

p

0.057

0.202

0.103

0.002

0.024

0.01

PET TLG

r

0.183*

–0.057

0.105

–0.229**

0.128

0.172*

p

0.014

0.45

0.162

0.002

0.087

0.022

Discussion

In recent years, systemic inflammation has been shown to play a significant role in the development and progression of lung cancer. Elevated systemic inflammation markers indicate a poor prognosis in all cancer patients [4].

The identification of prognostic factors in advanced cancer patients is important when choosing a treatment method. To date, a multitude of prognostic factors including age, sex, performance status, smoking history, histopathological type, sites and numbers of metastases, previous treatments, SUV values on PET/CT, presence of mutations that affect the treatment choice (EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 genes), and tumor PD-L1 expression have been identified [7, 8]. Moreover, weight loss and systemic inflammation (CRP, albumin) were also shown to predict survival in advanced lung cancer patients [9]. NSCLC patients are assiduously studied to determine more sensitive prognostic factors to help optimize treatment approaches in these patients [10].

Performance status is an important factor in assessment of quality of life, treatment choice, and prognosis evaluation in cancer patients. It is the most widely used prognostic factor for cancer patients in daily practice. The only disadvantage of performance status evaluation is that it is a subjective method. In a study that included 404 NSCLC patients with a performance status of 0–2, it was found to be the strongest prognostic factor [11]. Likewise, our study performance status was an independent prognostic factor for OS (p = 0.023). Thus, the results of our study confirm that performance status remains the gold standard prognostic measure.

Testing newly diagnosed NSCLC patients for driver mutations is now accepted as a standard method in treatment management [12]. The presence of driver mutations in NSCLC patients is among strong prognostic factors. Studies have shown that patients with EGFR mutations who receive targeted therapy achieve a significant survival advantage compared to those without EGFR mutations in advanced lung cancers [12]. Accordingly, our study determined positive EGFR mutation status as a statistically significant prognostic factor for overall survival (p = 0.014). In an analysis conducted by Luis Paz-Ares et al. [13] that evaluated the treatment modalities in NSCLC patients, NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations were found to achieve longer PFS with erlotinib (13.2 months) or gefitinib (9.8 months) therapies compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy (5.9 months). In our study, median first-line PFS was 9 months, and median OS was 14 months in the 26 patients with EGFR mutations compared to median OS of 8 months and median first-line PFS of 5 months in patients without mutations. This result was confirmed to be longer when compared with patients without driver mutations.

In a study by Yue-Hua Zhang et al. [14] that included 416 patients with NSCLC and 206 patients with stage IV disease, the hemoglobin level was determined to be an independent prognostic factor for overall survival. On the other hand, our study determined it to be an independent prognostic factor for first-line PFS (p = 0.005), while, for OS (p = 0.088), it approached significance in the univariate analysis.

To date, multiple studies have examined inflammatory indices (GPS, ALI, NLR, PLR, etc.) in patients with stage IV lung cancer. Two that are the most recognized are the NLR [15] and PLR [16]. The NLR and PLR were shown to have a prognostic role in many types of cancer including lung cancer [17]. However, although the role of the NLR in NSCLC is relatively clear, the role of the PLR in NSCLC remains uncertain [18].

The increase in NLR is a result of an elevated neutrophil count or a reduced lymphocyte count. A higher NLR is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with NSCLC [19]. In a study by Yildirim et al. [20] that evaluated inflammation markers in patients with advanced NSCLC, the NLR was shown to be an independent prognostic factor. However, the PLR was not found to have a relationship with the prognosis [20]. Meanwhile, various studies have reported conflicting results. In a large meta-analysis that included 214 studies and 1514 patients, a high PLR was revealed to have a significant relationship with poor OS and PFS in NSCLC patients [18].

In a retrospective analysis including 325 NSCLC patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, a high NLR was found to be correlated with low OS and PFS. Moreover, in a meta-analysis including 14 different studies with NSCLC patients, a high NLR was found to be associated with poor prognosis and low overall survival when a cut-off value of 5 was used for the NLR [21].

Meanwhile, in our study, neutrophil (p = 0.026) and NLR inflammation markers were not found to be independent prognostic factors. Similarly, the PLR did not have a statistically significant relationship with OS or PFS.

The problem with confirming NLR and PLR values as prognostic factors is that there is no certain threshold value. In the literature, various values for the NLR (3.0, 4.0, 5.0) were adopted. The subjective and inconsistent cut-off values for these inflammation markers may lead to errors in interpretation and hamper the routine use of these parameters in clinical practice. Another problem with inflammation markers is that these markers can also be affected by comorbid conditions and factors that are commonly encountered in cancer patients such as infection and coronary disease. It is also known that these conditions are encountered at higher rates depending on the age of NSCLC patients [21]. Further prospective and large-scale studies are needed to confirm the prognostic importance of the NLR and PLR.

Mechanisms that might explain the relationship between inflammation markers and a poor prognosis are quite complicated. However, certain hypotheses have been proposed. Inflammation and inflammation markers (neutrophil, platelet) alter the tumor microenvironment, contributing to angiogenesis, tumor development, and metastatic processes while lymphocyte releases inflammatory factors that prevent proliferation and metastatic processes [22].

Another area that is investigated in relation to cancer-related inflammation concerns the parameters obtained from PET/CT imaging and their correlations with inflammation markers. FDG-PET/CT tumor metabolism markers were shown to possess prognostic importance and have a relationship with systemic inflammation in many types of cancer [23]. Although the basis of the relationship between tumor glucose uptake and systematic inflammatory response markers is not clear, it is proposed that it is associated with stromal tumor activity and inflammatory cell activity in cancer.

Although PET/CT is widely used in NSCLC patients, data on whether semi-quantitative PET/CT parameters predict patient outcomes is currently limited [24]. Various semi-quantitative PET/CT parameters such as SUVmax, MTV, and TLG have been evaluated [25]. Some studies have shown these parameters to have prognostic value in NSCLC patients [26, 27].

In our study, PET TLG (p = 0.003) from prognostic factors predicting first-line PFS was shown to be an independent prognostic factor. When analyzed with regard to OS, the prognostic factors from PET/CT parameters that predicted OS in univariate analysis were PET MTV (p = 0.016) and PET TLG (p = 0.018). However, these were not determined as prognostic factors in multivariate analysis.

In line with our study, PET MTV and TLG were determined as prognostic factors associated with overall survival in a study by Sharma et al. [28] that included stage III or IV NSCLC patients and evaluated prognostic factors. This result was confirmed by multiple studies [27].

In a study by Polverari et al. [24] that was conducted with 57 candidates for immunotherapy who had NSCLC, patients with higher MTV and TLG values showed a higher probability of disease progression. In contrast, SUVmax did not show a significant relationship with either PFS or OS. These results indicate a superior correlation with volumetric 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters rather than SUVmax alone [24]. In a meta-analysis including 1474 patients, univariate analyses determined SUVmax as a strong prognostic factor. However, it was stated that this needed to be supported by studies that could conduct multivariate analyses [29]. In a study with a similar design by Mirilli et al. [33], SUVmax and SUV mean were found to possess lower prognostic importance than PET TLG and PET MTV, in line with our study. However, the majority of these studies are small single-center retrospective studies that involve heterogeneous patient populations in terms of disease stage and treatment. MTV and TLG are usually calculated by using a fixed SUVmax threshold. The calculation of lower or higher values for these parameters may be an issue in certain situations. Various cut-off values were proposed for PET/CT parameters in different studies. However, these values need to be validated. Determining optimal cut-off values would promote the use of these imaging parameters in routine daily practice.

Both PET/CT metabolic parameters and hematological parameters can be useful in evaluation of NSCLC prognosis. However, it is not clear whether these two types of parameters are correlated. If correlated, PET/CT and hematological parameters can be used in combination in the evaluation of the prognosis, providing complementary information. The correlation between PET/CT parameters and inflammatory parameters has been inspected in many cancers in various studies in the literature. However, our knowledge on this matter is limited to metastatic lung cancer patients.

This study determined a weak to moderate correlation between inflammation markers and PET/CT parameters (Tab. 4).

In a study conducted by Komek et al. [31], biomarkers such as the NLR and the PLR were investigated with regard to their correlations with the PET/CT parameters of the patients, and no significant difference was found between the subgroups in terms of the NLR or PLR. Although the cited study and our study differed in terms of the parameters that were compared and the patient populations, it is remarkable that a correlation between inflammatory parameters and PET/CT parameters was found.

The limitations of this study are its retrospective design that involved a limited number of centers and the small patient population it included. In addition, heterogeneities in patient treatments that may have resulted in differences in clinical outcomes and the combined evaluation of patients with and without driver mutations are also among the study limitations. Studies with large patient populations are needed to confirm the results of this study.

Conclusions

Positron emission tomography-computed tomography parameters and inflammation markers are easily obtained, non-invasive markers and may provide complementary information in metastatic NSCLC patients. In our study, PET TLG and the hemoglobin level at diagnosis were shown to be independent prognostic factors for PFS, and performance status and EGFR status were shown to be independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

Article Information and Declarations

Data availability statement

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee and conducted in compliance with the ethical principles defined in the Declaration of Helsinki (permit no-date: 357- 06.05.2021).

Author contributions

E.P., Z.O., S.E.: conception and design of the study, data analysis and interpretation and writing of the article; Y.G., H.K., M.K., Z.U., M.A.K.: acquisition of clinical data and data analysis and interpretation; B.T., A.I.: data analysis and interpretation.

All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript and have consented for publication.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

None.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplementary material

None.

References

  1. Wei S, Tian J, Song X, et al. Causes of death and competing risk analysis of the associated factors for non-small cell lung cancer using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018; 144(1): 145–155, doi: 10.1007/s00432-017-2522-3, indexed in Pubmed: 28980067.
  2. Remon J, Ahn MJ, Girard N, et al. Advanced-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Advances in Thoracic Oncology 2018. J Thorac Oncol. 2019; 14(7): 1134–1155, doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.03.022, indexed in Pubmed: 31002952.
  3. Paesmans M, Berghmans T, Dusart M, et al. European Lung Cancer Working Party, and on behalf of the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. Primary tumor standardized uptake value measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2010; 5(5): 612–619, doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181d0a4f5, indexed in Pubmed: 20234323.
  4. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011; 144(5): 646–674, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013, indexed in Pubmed: 21376230.
  5. McSorley ST, Khor BY, Tsang K, et al. The relationship between F-FDG-PETCT-derived markers of tumour metabolism and systemic inflammation in patients with recurrent disease following surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2018; 20(5): 407–415, doi: 10.1111/codi.13973, indexed in Pubmed: 29178362.
  6. Guner A, Kim HI. Biomarkers for Evaluating the Inflammation Status in Patients with Cancer. J Gastric Cancer. 2019; 19(3): 254–277, doi: 10.5230/jgc.2019.19.e29, indexed in Pubmed: 31598370.
  7. Cuyún Carter G, Barrett AM, Kaye JA, et al. A comprehensive review of nongenetic prognostic and predictive factors influencing the heterogeneity of outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2014; 6: 437–449, doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S63603, indexed in Pubmed: 25364274.
  8. Pawelczyk K, Piotrowska A, Ciesielska U, et al. Role of PD-L1 Expression in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Their Prognostic Significance according to Clinicopathological Factors and Diagnostic Markers. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20(4), doi: 10.3390/ijms20040824, indexed in Pubmed: 30769852.
  9. Sarhill N, Mahmoud FA, Christie R, et al. Assessment of nutritional status and fluid deficits in advanced cancer. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2003; 20(6): 465–473, doi: 10.1177/104990910302000610, indexed in Pubmed: 14649565.
  10. Simmons CP, Koinis F, Fallon MT, et al. Prognosis in advanced lung cancer--A prospective study examining key clinicopathological factors. Lung Cancer. 2015; 88(3): 304–309, doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.03.020, indexed in Pubmed: 25870155.
  11. Lobefaro R, Viscardi G, Di Liello R, et al. Immunotherapy in advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients with poor performance status: The role of clinical-pathological variables and inflammatory biomarkers. Lung Cancer. 2021; 152: 165–173, doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.12.027, indexed in Pubmed: 33421923.
  12. Pao W, Miller V, Zakowski M, et al. EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from “never smokers” and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004; 101(36): 13306–13311, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0405220101, indexed in Pubmed: 15329413.
  13. Paz-Ares L, Soulières D, Melezínek I, et al. Clinical outcomes in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR mutations: pooled analysis. J Cell Mol Med. 2010; 14(1-2): 51–69, doi: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009.00991.x, indexed in Pubmed: 20015198.
  14. Zhang YH, Lu Y, Lu H, et al. Pre-treatment hemoglobin levels are an independent prognostic factor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2018; 9(1): 44–49, doi: 10.3892/mco.2018.1628, indexed in Pubmed: 29896399.
  15. Kos FT, Hocazade C, Kos M, et al. Assessment of Prognostic Value of “Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio” and “Prognostic Nutritional Index” as a Sytemic Inflammatory Marker in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015; 16(9): 3997–4002, doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.9.3997, indexed in Pubmed: 25987075.
  16. Zhao QT, Yuan Z, Zhang H, et al. Prognostic role of platelet to lymphocyte ratio in non-small cell lung cancers: A meta-analysis including 3,720 patients. Int J Cancer. 2016; 139(1): 164–170, doi: 10.1002/ijc.30060, indexed in Pubmed: 26915723.
  17. Cupp MA, Cariolou M, Tzoulaki I, et al. 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, indexed in Pubmed: 33213430.
  18. Qiang G, Liang C, Xiao F, et al. Prognostic significance of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2016; 9: 869–876, doi: 10.2147/OTT.S96804, indexed in Pubmed: 26955285.
  19. Yin Y, Wang J, Wang X, et al. Prognostic value of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2015; 70(7): 524–530, doi: 10.6061/clinics/2015(07)10, indexed in Pubmed: 26222823.
  20. Chen Y, Wang W, Zhang X, et al. Prognostic importance of the nutritional status and systemic inflammatory response in non-small cell lung cancer. J BUON. 2013; 18(3): 728–732, indexed in Pubmed: 24065491.
  21. Liu ZL, Zeng TT, Zhou XJ, et al. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic marker for chemotherapy in advanced lung cancer. Int J Biol Markers. 2016; 31(4): e395–e401, doi: 10.5301/jbm.5000222, indexed in Pubmed: 27416842.
  22. Tan Z, Xue H, Sun Y, et al. The Role of Tumor Inflammatory Microenvironment in Lung Cancer. Front Pharmacol. 2021; 12: 688625, doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.688625, indexed in Pubmed: 34079469.
  23. McSorley ST, Khor BY, Tsang K, et al. The relationship between F-FDG-PETCT-derived markers of tumour metabolism and systemic inflammation in patients with recurrent disease following surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2018; 20(5): 407–415, doi: 10.1111/codi.13973, indexed in Pubmed: 29178362.
  24. Polverari G, Ceci F, Bertaglia V, et al. F-FDG Pet Parameters and Radiomics Features Analysis in Advanced Nsclc Treated with Immunotherapy as Predictors of Therapy Response and Survival. Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12(5), doi: 10.3390/cancers12051163, indexed in Pubmed: 32380754.
  25. Sharma A, Mohan A, Bhalla AS, et al. Role of Various Metabolic Parameters Derived From Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT as Prognostic Markers in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Undergoing Platinum-Based Chemotherapy. Clin Nucl Med. 2018; 43(1): e8–ee17, doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001886, indexed in Pubmed: 29112011.
  26. Sahiner I, Vural GU. Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography in lung cancer. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2014; 4(3): 195–206, doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2014.03.05, indexed in Pubmed: 24914421.
  27. Chen HHW, Lee BF, Su WC, et al. Prognostic value of whole-body total lesion glycolysis at pretreatment FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology. 2012; 264(2): 559–566, doi: 10.1148/radiol.12111148, indexed in Pubmed: 22692034.
  28. van Loon J, Offermann C, Ollers M, et al. Early CT and FDG-metabolic tumour volume changes show a significant correlation with survival in stage I-III small cell lung cancer: a hypothesis generating study. Radiother Oncol. 2011; 99(2): 172–175, doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.03.014, indexed in Pubmed: 21571382.
  29. Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, et al. European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2008; 3(1): 6–12, doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31815e6d6b, indexed in Pubmed: 18166834.
  30. Mirili C, Guney IB, Paydas S, et al. Prognostic significance of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and correlation with PET-CT metabolic parameters in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Int J Clin Oncol. 2019; 24(2): 168–178, doi: 10.1007/s10147-018-1338-8, indexed in Pubmed: 30109543.
  31. Komek H, Altindag S, Can C. Association of PET Scan Parameters of Pulmonary Masses and Reticuloendothelial System with Hematologic Parameters. J Nucl Med Radiat Ther. 2017; 08(02), doi: 10.4172/2155-9619.1000327.