Time-Sequencing of the Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio to Predict Prognosis of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Since triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) have varying prognoses, it is important to identify subgroups with particularly poor prognosis. The aim of this study was to assess whether changes in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) during the treatment process were associated with poor prognosis in TNBC patients. This study included 600 TNBC patients who underwent surgery from January 2005 to December 2016. The associations of the NLR and clinicopathologic factors with breast cancer recurrence and survival in patients who underwent both definitive local treatment (total mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy) and systemic chemotherapy were analyzed. The NLRs at four time points (before surgery, before chemotherapy, before radiotherapy, and 1 year after surgery) were assessed. The univariate analysis showed that changes in the NLR before the start of radiotherapy (odds ratio: 1.115, confidence interval: 1.011-1.229) and 1 year after surgery (odds ratio: 1.196, confidence interval: 1.057-1.354) significantly increased the risk of recurrence or death. In multivariate analysis, T stage, N stage, and changes in the NLR were significant factors. A time-sequenced NLR may reflect the prognosis of TNBC patients. A poor prognosis is expected in patients whose NLR increases during treatment compared to the preoperative NLR, and additional treatment is needed.

Stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure according to heart failure type.

AIMS: This study aimed to elucidate the risk for stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure (HF) according to HF type. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 10 780 patients with atrial fibrillation were enrolled in a multicentre prospective registry and divided according to HF type: no-HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (HFpEF), HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF). Each group included 237 age-matched and sex-matched patients (age, 69.0 ± 10.3 years; men, 69.6%). The baseline characteristics, cumulative incidence, and hazard ratios for stroke/SE and major bleeding were compared across the groups. Patients with HF accounted for 10.3% of the total population; HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF represented 43.7%, 23.6%, and 32.7% of the patients with HF, respectively. The CHA2 DS2 -VASc score was significantly higher in the HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF groups than in the no-HF group. The annual stroke/SE incidence rates were 2.8%, 0.7%, 1.1%, and 0.9% in the HFpEF, HFmrEF, HFrEF, and no-HF groups, respectively. The cumulative incidence of stroke/SE was significantly highest in the HFpEF group at 22.8 ± 10.0 months (P = 0.020). The stroke/SE risk was higher in the HFpEF group than in the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups (hazard ratio, 3.192; 95% confidence interval, 1.039-9.810; P = 0.043). E/e' value was an independent risk factor for stroke/SE. There were no significant differences in the incidence of major bleeding across the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The stroke/SE risk was the highest in the HFpEF group and comparable between the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of third-line treatments for advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The most effective agent for the third-line treatment of advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (AGC) has not yet been determined. The aim of this network meta-analysis is to compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of third-line treatments for AGC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) using four electronic databases. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs) were used as efficacy or tolerability outcomes. A Bayesian network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used. RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving 2601 patients and nine treatments were included. The results suggested that 1 mg/kg nivolumab (nivolumab1) + 3 mg/kg ipilimumab (ipilimumab3) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% credible interval [Crl] 0.38-0.91) was the most effective treatment, followed by nivolumab (HR 0.63, 95% Crl 0.50-0.79), for prolonging OS. Regorafenib (HR 0.40, 95% Crl 0.28-0.58) was most likely to improve PFS, followed by apatinib (HR 0.45, 95% Crl 0.33-0.60). Nivolumab1 + ipilimumab3 and nivolumab were better at improving ORR, whereas nivolumab1 + ipilimumab3 had the highest toxicity based on the AEs. For benefit-risk ratio, nivolumab, apatinib or regorafenib appeared to be the best options. Chemotherapy or two different dose combinations of nivolumab and ipilimumab were ranked as the next options because of poor tolerability, despite good efficacy. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy (nivolumab) or antiangiogenic agents (regorafenib and apatinib) are associated with benefits for benefit-risk ratio as third-line monotherapy. This study might serve as a guideline to aid in the selection of third-line treatments for AGC.