Significance of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in young patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma

Figures & data

Table 1 Clinical pathologic information of the two groups

Variables	Young Group (n=103)	Old group (n=103)	p
Sex
Female	53	53
Male	50	50	1.000
Smoker
Yes	10	10
No	93	93	1.000
Drinker
Yes	8	8
No	95	95	1.000
Primary site
Tongue	53	53
Mouth floor	20	20
Lower gingiva	20	20
Buccal	10	10	1.000
Tumor stage
T1+T2	83	83
T3+T4	20	20	1.000
Node stage
No	75	75
N+	28	28	1.000
Disease stage
I/II	66	66
III/IV	37	37	1.000
Perineural invasion
Yes	19	22
No	84	81	0.601
Lymphovascular invasion
Yes	15	18
No	88	85	0.569
Differentiation
Well	47	40
Moderate	43	52
Poor	13	11	0.453
NLR (mean)	2.56	2.81	0.012
Treatment
S	6	26
S+R	86	72
S+R+C	11	5	<0.001

Abbreviations: S, surgery; R, radiotherapy; C, chemotherapy; NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; NS, not significant.

Figure 1 Comparison of recurrence-free survival between young and old groups (p=0.014).

Figure 2 Comparison of disease-specific survival between young and old groups (p=0.010).

Table 2 Association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and clinical pathologic characteristics in young patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma

Variables	NLR		P
	≤2.56 (n=55)	>2.56 (n=48)
Sex
Female	28	25
Male	27	23	0.905
Smoker
Yes	3	7
No	52	41	0.182
Drinker
Yes	2	6
No	53	42	0.141
Tumor stage
T1+T2	48	35
T3+T4	7	13	0.066
Node stage
N0	44	31
N+	11	17	0.079
Disease stage
I/II	45	21
III/IV	10	27	<0.001
Perineural invasion
Yes	7	12
No	48	36	0.109
Lymphovascular invasion
Yes	5	10
No	50	38	0.092
Differentiation
Well	32	15
Moderate	18	25
Poor	5	8	0.023

Abbreviation: NS, not significant.

Table 3 Predictors for recurrence-free survival in young patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma

Variables	Log-rank analysis	Cox model
	p	HR(95% CI)	p
Sex	0.435
Smoker	0.223
Drinker	0.533
Primary site (tongue vs other sites)	0.009	2.497(1.562–7.246)	<0.001
Tumor stage (T1+T2 vs T3+T4)	0.064
Node stage (N0 vs N+)	0.111
Disease stage (I/II vs III/IV)	0.008	3.458(1.597–9.335)	<0.001
Perineural invasion	0.099
Lymphovascular invasion	0.006	2.002(1.346–4.886)	0.003
Differentiation (Well vs Moderate + Poor)	0.018	2.946(0.943–6.669)	0.099
NLR (≤2.56 vs >2.56)	0.643
Radiotherapy	0.033	0.632(0.421–1.165)	0.154
Chemotherapy	0.875

Abbreviation: NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio.

Table 4 Predictors for disease-specific survival in young patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma

Variables	Log-rank analysis	Cox model
	p	HR(95% CI)	p
Sex	0.641
Smoker	0.115
Drinker	0.068
Primary site (tongue vs other sites)	0.007	2.047(1.687–5.227)	0.004
Tumor stage (T1+T2 vs T3+T4)	0.245
Node stage (N0 vs N+)	0.087
Disease stage (I/II vs III/IV)	0.001	4.281(2.101–10.223)	<0.001
Perineural invasion	0.015	2.110(1.347–4.613)	0.009
Lymphovascular invasion	0.110
Differentiation (Well vs Moderate + Poor)	0.003	2.348(1.612–6.759)	0.003
NLR (≤2.56 vs >2.56)	0.020	1.874(1.075–2.886)	0.037
Radiotherapy	0.031	0.845(0.431–1.221)	0.098
Chemotherapy	0.411

Abbreviation: NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio.

Figure 3 Disease-specific survival in patients with different neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (p=0.020).