The clinical use of pretreatment NLR, PLR, and LMR in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: evidence from a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Table 1 Main characteristics of all studies included in the meta-analysis

Study	Ethnicity (country)	Case no	Gender (M/F)	Age	Stage	NLR cutoff (positive, %)	PLR cutoff (positive, %)	LMR cutoff (positive, %)	Follow-up (months)	Outcome	NOS score
Yang et al (2018)^Citation34	East-Asian (China)	515	418/97	61	I–III	1.2 (90.5)	133 (40.8)	NR	35	OS, C	8
Kunizaki et al (2018)^Citation39	East-Asian (Japan)	116	98/18	66	0–IV	5 (10.3)	150 (35.3)	NR	NR	OS	6
Sato et al (CRT; 2017)^Citation35	East-Asian (Japan)	104	NR	65.3	Advanced	3 (51.0)	NR	NR	NR	OS	6
Sato et al (FP; 2017)^Citation35	East-Asian (Japan)	145	NR	63.6	Advanced	3 (41.4)	NR	NR	NR	OS	6
Kijima et al (2017)^Citation38	East-Asian (Japan)	98	86/12	64.9	III–IV	3 (38.8)	NR	NR	15.4	OS	7
Gao et al (2017)^Citation37	East-Asian (Japan)	1,281	988/293	NR	0–IV	2.86 (41.3)	NR	NR	NR	OS	7
Miao et al (2017)^Citation36	East-Asian (Japan)	168	134/34	67.15	II–IV	3.34 (35.7)	103.75 (59.5)	NR	33	OS	7
Zhou et al (2017)^Citation14	East-Asian (China)	517	407/110	65	II–IV	5 (61)	NR	NR	17	OS, PFS	8
He et al (2017)^Citation15	East-Asian (China)	317	268/49	60	I–IV	3.3 (49.5)	150 (30.9)	NR	19.2	OS, DFS, C	8
Liu et al (2017)^Citation16	East-Asian (China)	162	127/35	63	II–III	NR	NR	4.02 (50)	23.3	OS, PFS, C	7
Zhang et al	East-Asian	212	166/46	60	T N M 1–4 0–1 0–1	3 (38.2)	NR	NR	17	OS, PFS	6
Zhang et al (2016)^Citation18	East-Asian (China)	468	376/92	59.5	I–III	2.5	117	NR	49.1	OS, DFS	6
Toyokawa et al (2016)^Citation19	East-Asian (Japan)	185	152/33	64	I–IV	3.61 (11.9)	193 (17.3)	NR	81.5	OS, RFS	7
Hirahara et al (2016)^Citation20	East-Asian (Japan)	468	132/15	66	I–III	1.6 (74.8)	147 (46.2)	4 (56.5)	NR	CSS, C	8
Ikeguchi et al (2016)^Citation21	East-Asian (Japan)	84	73/11	65.7	I–III	3 (31)	NR	NR	35.5	DFS	6
Geng et al (2016)^Citation22	East-Asian (China)	916	696/220	60	I–III	1.7 (68.3)	120 (50)	3.57 (54.1)	39	OS, C	9
Xiao et al (2016)^Citation23	East-Asian (China)	121	106/15	62	I–III	1.77 (47.9)	NR	NR	28	OS, RFS, C	9
Zhu et al (2017)^Citation24	East-Asian (China)	220	117/103	NR	T3N0M0	NR	NR	3.36 (42.7)	53.25	OS, DFS, C	8
Huang and Feng (2015)^Citation25	East-Asian (China)	348	303/45	59.2	I–III	NR	NR	2.93 (58.3)	NR	CSS, C	7
Han et al (2015)^Citation26	East-Asian (China)	218	177/41	60.5	I–III	2.6 (41.7)	244 (12.4)	2.57 (79.4)	NR	OS, DFS, C	8
Ji et al (2016)^Citation27	East-Asian (China)	41	38/3	56.6	I–III	5 (24.4)	130 (63.4)	NR	NR	OS	7
Jung et al (2016)^Citation28	East-Asian (Korea)	119	112/7	63.6	I–III	2.97 (19.3)	NR	NR	28.68	OS, DFS	6
Kosumi et al (2016)^Citation29	East-Asian (Japan)	283	248/35	NR	I–IV	1.94 (49.8)	NR	NR	33.6	OS	6
Arigami et al (2015)^Citation30	East-Asian (Japan)	309	210/28	65	I–III	3 (17.6)	NR	NR	26	OS	7
Duan et al (2015)^Citation31	East-Asian (China)	371	276/95	57	Ib–IIIc	3 (19.9)	NR	NR	66	CSS, RFS, C	8
Xie et al (2016)^Citation32	East-Asian (China)	317	244/73	58.1	I–III	2.1 (46.7)	103 (62.1)	NR	46	CSS, C	6
Feng et al (2014)^Citation33	East-Asian (China)	483	411/72	59.1	I–III	3.5 (36.8)	150 (45.5)	NR	NR	OS, C	8

Abbreviations: NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa scale; NR, not reported; C, clinicopathological parameters; CRT, chemoradiotherapy; CSS, cancer-specific survival; F, female; FP, 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin; M, male; OS, overall survival; NLR, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet to lymphocyte ratio; LMR, lymphocyte to monocyte ratio; PFS, progression-free survival; DFS, disease-free survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival; NR, no report.

Figure 1 Flow diagram of studies selection procedure.

Abbreviations: NLR, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet to lymphocyte ratio; LMR, lymphocyte to monocyte ratio; EC, esophageal cancer; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Table 2 Meta-analysis results of NLR, PLR, and LMR and OS/CSS and EFS in patients with ESCC

	OS/CSS				EFS
	N	HR (95% CI), P	I^2 (%), P	Begg’s P, Egger’s P	N	HR (95% CI), P	I^2 (%), P	Begg’s P, Egger’s P
NLR
Overall	22	1.54 (1.39, 1.74), <0.001	53.9, 0.001	0.17, 0.06	11	1.34 (1.22, 1.46), <0.001	20, 0.253	0.31, 0.17
Subgroup analysis Cutoff value
≥3	12	1.71 (1.47, 1.98), <0.001	40.1, 0.07	0.16, 0.12	6	1.43 (1.25, 1.63), <0.001	0.0, 0.516	1.00, 0.44
<3	10	1.41 (1.21, 1.64), <0.001	57.3, 0.01	0.37, 0.65	5	1.26 (1.11, 1.43), <0.001	39.0, 0.161	0.81, 0.47
Sample size
≥200	13	1.45 (1.28, 1.64), <0.001	49.9, 0.02	0.95, 0.56	6	1.36 (1.20, 1.53), <0.001	0.0, 0.693	0.45, 0.16
<200	9	1.89 (1.47, 2.44), <0.001	61.7, 0.01	0.86, 0.01	5	1.55 (1.09, 2.20), 0.015	56.8, 0.055	0.81, 0.23
Treatment
Surgery-based	15	1.43 (1.27, 1.61), <0.001	45.7, 0.03	0.14, 0.27	9	1.31 (1.18, 1.46), <0.001	22.2, 0.245	0.35, 0.09
CRT	7	1.78 (1.55, 2.04), <0.001	37.0, 0.14	1.00, 0.63	2	1.41 (1.18, 1.69), <0.001	42.8, 0.186	–
Country
China	14	1.48 (1.30, 1.69), <0.001	55.0, 0.01	0.74, 0.75	8	1.41 (1.25, 1.58), <0.001	4.9, 0.392	0.90, 0.47
Non-China	8	1.77 (1.39, 2.25), <0.001	57.4, 0.02	0.92, 0.02	3	1.22 (1.05, 1.42), 0.011	33.7, 0.221	0.30, 0.59
PLR
Overall	12	1.37 (1.25, 1.51), <0.001	33.1, 0.125	0.84, 0.32	5	1.27 (1.07, 1.52), 0.007	26.9, 0.242	0.62, 0.69
Cutoff value
≥150	5	1.58 (1.33, 1.88), <0.001	12.4, 0.36	0.46, 0.13	3	1.26 (1.00, 1.59), 0.05	10.5, 0.33	0.30, 0.26
<150	7	1.29 (1.15, 1.44), <0.001	26.0, 0.23	0.23, 0.14	2	1.72 (0.69, 4.29), 0.24	68.9, 0.07	–
Sample size
≥200	7	1.40 (1.20, 1.64), <0.001	51.2, 0.06	0.76, 0.51	3	1.25 (1.04, 1.51), 0.02	7.3, 0.34	1.00, 0.44
<200	5	1.38 (1.03, 1.85), 0.03	3.9, 0.385	0.81, 0.07	2	1.73 (0.64, 4.68), 0.28	67.6, 0.08	–
Treatment
Surgery-based	9	1.39 (1.16, 1.68), <0.001	48.0, 0.05	0.60, 0.36	5	1.27 (1.07, 1.52), 0.007	26.9, 0.242	0.62, 0.69
CRT	3	1.44 (1.20, 1.72), <0.001	0.0, 0.705	1.00, 0.94	–	–	–	–
Country
China	9	1.42 (1.22, 1.66), <0.001	48.8, 0.05	0.60, 0.22	4	1.29 (1.07, 1.55), 0.01	43, 0.15	0.73, 0.64
Non-China	3	1.31 (0.92, 1.86), 0.134	0.0, 0.68	1.00, 0.904	1	1.13 (0.66, 1.94), 0.66	–	–
LMR
Overall	6	0.70 (0.54, 0.89), 0.004	64.0, 0.02	0.02, 0.05	3	0.65 (0.43, 0.99), 0.04	75.2, 0.02	0.12, 0.06
Cutoff value
≥3.5	3	0.80 (0.56, 1.10), 0.17	70.0, 0.04	1.00, 0.58	2	0.67 (0.33, 1.35), 0.26	86.9, 0.01	–
<3.5	3	0.59 (0.46, 0.77), <0.001	0.0, 0.54	0.30, 0.17	1	0.61 (0.42, 0.89), 0.01	–	–
Sample size
≥200	4	0.83 (0.73, 0.95), 0.008	49.5, 0.11	0.09, 0.36	2	0.77 (0.50, 1.18)	67.1, 0.08	–
<200	2	0.47 (0.32, 0.69), <0.001	0.0, 0.70	–	1	0.46 (0.31, 0.69)	–	–
Country
China	5	0.74 (0.58, 0.93), 0.012	62.4, 0.03	0.03, 0.14	3	0.65 (0.43, 0.99), 0.04	75.2, 0.02	0.12, 0.06
Non-China	1	0.42 (0.21, 0.83), 0.013	–	–	0	–	–	–
Treatment
Surgery	5	0.75 (0.59, 0.95), 0.017	58.4, 0.05	0.03, 0.12	2	0.77 (0.50, 1.18), 0.23	67.1, 0.08	–
CRT	1	0.50 (0.32, 0.78), 0.002	–	–	1	0.46 (0.31, 0.69), <0.001	–	–

Abbreviations: CRT, chemoradiotherapy; CSS, cancer-specific survival; EFS, event-free survival; OS, overall survival; NLR, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet to lymphocyte ratio; LMR, lymphocyte to monocyte ratio; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Figure 2 Forest plot of HR for the association of NLR with OS/CSS (A) and EFS (B) in patients with ESCC.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; CSS, cancer-specific survival; EFS, event-free survival; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; NLR, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio.

Table 3 Meta-analysis results of NLR, PLR, and LMR and clinicopathological parameters in patients with ESCC

		NLR				PLR				LMR
	N	OR (95% CI), P	I^2 (%), P	Begg P	N	OR (95% CI), P	I^2 (%), P	Begg P	N	OR (95% CI), P	I^2 (%), P	Begg P
Sex (M vs F)	12	1.58 (1.19, 2.10), 0.002	62.1, 0.002	0.63	7	0.84 (0.50, 1.44), 0.53	75.5, <0.001	0.29	7	0.61 (0.37, 1.00), 0.049	75.1, 0.001	0.65
Location (U/M vs L)	11	1.01 (0.81, 1.26), 0.92	50.2, 0.02	0.63	7	1.00 (0.84, 1.20), 0.97	17.8, 0.29	0.88	7	1.23 (1.03, 1.46), 0.021	0.0, 0.71	0.65
Tumor differentiation (poor vs moderate/high)	10	0.99 (0.76, 1.29), 0.66	63.9, 0.003	0.86	7	1.35 (1.03, 1.78), 0.03	44.3, 0.10	1.00	5	0.87 (0.60, 1.25), 0.44	58.9, 0.045	0.33
Depth of invasion (T3–T4 vs T1–T2)	10	1.95 (1.46, 2.60), <0.001	60.0, 0.007	0.86	6	1.49 (1.26, 1.76), <0.001	0.0, 0.82	0.13	5	0.58 (0.48, 0.69), <0.001	36.7, 0.18	0.33
Tumor length (≥3 vs <3 cm)	3	2.82 (1.67, 4.77), <0.001	63.1, 0.066	0.6	3	1.82 (1.32, 2.49), <0.001	41.3, 0.18	0.60	3	0.86 (0.63, 1.18), 0.35	59.7, 0.08	0.6
Lymph node metastasis (yes vs no)	11	1.27 (1.03, 1.57), 0.026	46.4, 0.045	0.21	8	1.53 (1.20, 1.96), 0.001	52.2, 0.04	1.00	6	0.68 (0.57, 0.82), <0.001	0.0, 0.60	0.85
Stage (III–IV vs I–II)	10	1.47 (1.28, 1.69), <0.001	0.0, 0.64	1.00	6	1.32 (1.12, 1.57), 0.001	11.1, 0.34	0.02	4	0.63 (0.50, 0.80), <0.001	0.0, 0.48	0.09

Abbreviations: NLR, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet to lymphocyte ratio; LMR, lymphocyte to monocyte ratio; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; M, male; F, female; U/M, upper/middle; L, lower.

Figure 3 Forest plot of HR for the association of PLR with OS/CSS (A) and EFS (B) in patients with ESCC.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; CSS, cancer-specific survival; EFS, event-free survival; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; PLR, platelet to lymphocyte ratio.

Figure 4 Forest plot of HR for the association of LMR with OS/CSS (A) and EFS (B) in patients with ESCC.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; CSS, cancer-specific survival; EFS, event-free survival; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; LMR, lymphocyte to monocyte ratio.

Table S1 Details of blood testing time, treatment methods, and NOS score of included studies

Study	Blood exam time	Treatment	Quality assessment with NOS
			Selection	Comparability	Outcome
Yang et al (2018)^Citation1	Before surgery	Surgery ± adj CRT	***	**	***
Kunizaki et al (2018)^Citation2	Before treatment	Surgery/other	***	*	**
Sato et al (2017)^Citation3	Before treatment	CRT	***	*	**
Kijima et al (2017)^Citation4	Within 2 weeks before treatment	CRT	***	**	**
Gao et al (2017)^Citation5	Before treatment	Surgery ± adj CRT	***	**	**
Miao et al (2017)^Citation6	Before treatment	CRT	***	**	**
Zhou et al (2017)^Citation7	Before CRT	CRT	***	**	***
He et al (2017)^Citation8	Within 1 week before surgery	Surgery ± adj CRT	****	**	***
Liu et al (2017)^Citation9	Within 1 week before CRT	CRT	***	**	**
Zhang et al (2016)^Citation10	Before CRT	CRT	***	*	**
Zhang et al (2016)^Citation11	Within 5 days before surgery	Surgery ± adj CRT	***	*	**
Toyokawa et al (2016)^Citation12	Before treatment	± NAC + surgery ± adj CMT	***	*	***
Hirahara et al (2016)^Citation13	1 week before surgery	Surgery	***	**	***
Ikeguchi et al (2016)^Citation14	Before NAC/surgery	± NAC + surgery ± adj CT	***	*	**
Geng et al (2016)^Citation15	Before surgery	Surgery	****	**	***
Xiao et al (2016)^Citation16	Within 2 weeks before CRT	Surgery ± adj CRT	****	**	***
Zhu et al (2017)^Citation17	Within 3 days prior to surgery	Surgery ± adj CRT	***	**	***
Huang and Feng (2015)^Citation18	Within 1 week before surgery	Surgery ± adj CRT	***	*	***
Han et al (2015)^Citation19	Within 1 week before surgery	Surgery ± adj CRT	***	**	***
Ji et al (2016)^Citation20	Before NAC	NAC + S	***	*	***
Jung et al (2016)^Citation21	Within 1 week before surgery	Surgery ± adj CMT	***	*	**
Kosumi et al (2016)^Citation22	Before NAC/surgery	± NAC + surgery ± adj CMT	***	*	**
Arigami et al (2015)^Citation23	Within 2 weeks before surgery	Surgery	***	*	***
Duan et al (2015)^Citation24	Within 1 week before surgery	Surgery	***	**	***
Xie et al (2016)^Citation25	Within 10 days before surgery	Surgery ± adj CMT	***	*	**
Feng et al (2014)^Citation26	Within 1 week before surgery	Surgery	***	**	***

Abbreviations: NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa scale; CRT, chemoradiotherapy; CT, computed tomography; adj, adjuvant; S, surgery; NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; CMT, chemoradiotherapy.

YangYXuHZhouLPlatelet to lymphocyte ratio is a predictive marker of prognosis and therapeutic effect of postoperative chemotherapy in non-metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinomaClin Chim Acta201847916016529325800

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KunizakiMTominagaTWakataKClinical significance of the C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio for the prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomaMol Clin Oncol20188237037429435305

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SatoYGondaKHaradaMIncreased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a novel marker for nutrition, inflammation and chemotherapy outcome in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinomaBiomed Rep201771798428685065

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

KijimaTArigamiTUchikadoYCombined fibrinogen and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic marker of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinomaCancer Sci2017108219319927889946

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GaoGDSunBWangXBWangSMNeutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as prognostic indicator for patients with esophageal squamous cell cancerInt J Biol Markers2017324409414

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MiaoCZhuSPanHCaoXYuanSHuXCombined neutrophil-platelet score and hemoglobin level predict survival in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with chemoradiotherapyOncotarget2017850879718797929152134

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

ZhouXLLiYQZhuWGNeutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic biomarker for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with definitive chemoradiotherapySci Rep201774258128195186

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HeYFLuoHQWangWPreoperative NLR and PLR in the middle or lower ESCC patients with radical operationEur J Cancer Care2017262

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LiuXLiMZhaoFThe lymphocyte-monocyte ratio predicts tumor response and survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who received definitive chemoradiotherapyOnco Targets Ther20171087187728243122

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ZhangFChenZWangPHuXGaoYHeJCombination of platelet count and mean platelet volume (COP-MPV) predicts postoperative prognosis in both resectable early and advanced stage esophageal squamous cell cancer patientsTumour Biol20163779323933126779631

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

ToyokawaTKuboNTamuraTThe pretreatment Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is an independent prognostic factor in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: results from a retrospective studyBMC Cancer20161672227599460

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HiraharaNMatsubaraTMizotaYIshibashiSTajimaYPrognostic value of preoperative inflammatory response biomarkers in patients with esophageal cancer who undergo a curative thoracoscopic esophagectomyBMC Surg20161616627650456

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

IkeguchiMKounoYKiharaKEvaluation of prognostic markers for patients with curatively resected thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinomasMol Clin Oncol20165676777228105355

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

GengYShaoYZhuDSystemic immune-inflammation index predicts prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysisSci Rep201663948228000729

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

XiaoQZhangBDengXThe preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a novel immune parameter for the prognosis of esophageal basaloid squamous cell carcinomaPLoS One20161112e016829927959959

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ZhuYLiMBoCPrognostic significance of the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio and the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte to tumor-associated macrophage ratio in patients with stage T3N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinomaCancer Immunol Immunother201766334335427915370

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HuangYFengJFLow preoperative lymphocyte to monocyte ratio predicts poor cancer-specific survival in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomaOnco Targets Ther2015813714525609981

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HanLHJiaYBSongQXWangJBWangNNChengYFPrognostic significance of preoperative lymphocyte-monocyte ratio in patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinomaAsian Pac J Cancer Prev20151662245225025824745

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

JiWHJiangYHJiYLLiBMaoWMPrechemotherapy neutrophil : lymphocyte ratio is superior to the platelet : lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic indicator for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapyDis Esophagus201629540341125625421

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

JungJParkSYParkSJParkJPrognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for overall and disease-free survival in patients with surgically treated esophageal squamous cell carcinomaTumour Biol20163767149715426662960

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

KosumiKBabaYIshimotoTNeutrophil/lymphocyte ratio predicts the prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patientsSurg Today201646440541326036223

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ArigamiTOkumuraHMatsumotoMAnalysis of the Fibrinogen and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Promising Blood Marker of Tumor Progression and PrognosisMedicine20159442e170226496280

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DuanHZhangXWangFXPrognostic role of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in operable esophageal squamous cell carcinomaWorld J Gastroenterol201521185591559725987784

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

XieXLuoKJHuYWangJYChenJPrognostic value of preoperative platelet-lymphocyte and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in patients undergoing surgery for esophageal squamous cell cancerDis Esophagus2016291798525410116

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FengJFHuangYChenQXPreoperative platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is superior to neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a predictive factor in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomaWorld J Surg Oncol2014125824641770

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

YangYXuHZhouLPlatelet to lymphocyte ratio is a predictive marker of prognosis and therapeutic effect of postoperative chemotherapy in non-metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinomaClin Chim Acta201847916016529325800

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KunizakiMTominagaTWakataKClinical significance of the C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio for the prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomaMol Clin Oncol20188237037429435305

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SatoYGondaKHaradaMIncreased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a novel marker for nutrition, inflammation and chemotherapy outcome in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinomaBiomed Rep201771798428685065

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

KijimaTArigamiTUchikadoYCombined fibrinogen and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic marker of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinomaCancer Sci2017108219319927889946

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GaoGDSunBWangXBWangSMNeutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as prognostic indicator for patients with esophageal squamous cell cancerInt J Biol Markers2017324409414

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MiaoCZhuSPanHCaoXYuanSHuXCombined neutrophil-platelet score and hemoglobin level predict survival in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with chemoradiotherapyOncotarget2017850879718797929152134

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

ZhouXLLiYQZhuWGNeutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic biomarker for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with definitive chemoradiotherapySci Rep201774258128195186

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HeYFLuoHQWangWPreoperative NLR and PLR in the middle or lower ESCC patients with radical operationEur J Cancer Care2017262

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LiuXLiMZhaoFThe lymphocyte-monocyte ratio predicts tumor response and survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who received definitive chemoradiotherapyOnco Targets Ther20171087187728243122

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ZhangPXiMZhaoLComparison of two inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with thoracic esophageal cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapyInt J Clin Exp Med20169217641771

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ZhangFChenZWangPHuXGaoYHeJCombination of platelet count and mean platelet volume (COP-MPV) predicts postoperative prognosis in both resectable early and advanced stage esophageal squamous cell cancer patientsTumour Biol20163779323933126779631

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

ToyokawaTKuboNTamuraTThe pretreatment Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is an independent prognostic factor in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: results from a retrospective studyBMC Cancer20161672227599460

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HiraharaNMatsubaraTMizotaYIshibashiSTajimaYPrognostic value of preoperative inflammatory response biomarkers in patients with esophageal cancer who undergo a curative thoracoscopic esophagectomyBMC Surg20161616627650456

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

IkeguchiMKounoYKiharaKEvaluation of prognostic markers for patients with curatively resected thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinomasMol Clin Oncol20165676777228105355

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

GengYShaoYZhuDSystemic immune-inflammation index predicts prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysisSci Rep201663948228000729

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

XiaoQZhangBDengXThe preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a novel immune parameter for the prognosis of esophageal basaloid squamous cell carcinomaPLoS One20161112e016829927959959

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ZhuYLiMBoCPrognostic significance of the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio and the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte to tumor-associated macrophage ratio in patients with stage T3N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinomaCancer Immunol Immunother201766334335427915370

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HuangYFengJFLow preoperative lymphocyte to monocyte ratio predicts poor cancer-specific survival in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomaOnco Targets Ther2015813714525609981

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HanLHJiaYBSongQXWangJBWangNNChengYFPrognostic significance of preoperative lymphocyte-monocyte ratio in patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinomaAsian Pac J Cancer Prev20151662245225025824745

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

JiWHJiangYHJiYLLiBMaoWMPrechemotherapy neutrophil : lymphocyte ratio is superior to the platelet : lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic indicator for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapyDis Esophagus201629540341125625421

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

JungJParkSYParkSJParkJPrognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for overall and disease-free survival in patients with surgically treated esophageal squamous cell carcinomaTumour Biol20163767149715426662960

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

KosumiKBabaYIshimotoTNeutrophil/lymphocyte ratio predicts the prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patientsSurg Today201646440541326036223

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ArigamiTOkumuraHMatsumotoMAnalysis of the Fibrinogen and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Promising Blood Marker of Tumor Progression and PrognosisMedicine20159442e170226496280

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DuanHZhangXWangFXPrognostic role of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in operable esophageal squamous cell carcinomaWorld J Gastroenterol201521185591559725987784

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

XieXLuoKJHuYWangJYChenJPrognostic value of preoperative platelet-lymphocyte and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in patients undergoing surgery for esophageal squamous cell cancerDis Esophagus2016291798525410116

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FengJFHuangYChenQXPreoperative platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is superior to neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a predictive factor in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomaWorld J Surg Oncol2014125824641770

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar