错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Assessing the prognostic role of panimmune inflammation in high-grade gliomas

  • Engin Eren Kavak,
  • İsmail Dilli,
  • Güler Yavaş

摘要

Objective

High-grade gliomas are aggressive brain tumors with poor prognoses. Understanding the factors that influence their progression is crucial for improving treatment outcomes. This study investigates the prognostic significance of panimmune inflammation in patients diagnosed with high-grade gliomas.

Materials–Methods

Data from 89 high-grade glioma patients were analysed retrospectively. The Panimmune inflammation Value (PIV) of each patient meeting the eligibility criteria was calculated on the basis of platelet, monocyte, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts obtained from peripheral blood samples taken on the first day of treatment. PIV is calculated using the following formula: PIV = T × M × N ÷ L. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was employed to identify the optimal cut-off value for PIV about progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes. The primary and secondary endpoints were the differences in OS and PFS between the PIV groups. The Kaplan‒Meier method was used for survival analyses.

Results

The ROC analysis indicated that the optimal PIV threshold was 545.5, which exhibited a significant interaction with PFS and OS outcomes. Patients were subsequently divided into two groups based on their PIV levels: a low PIV (L-PIV) group comprising 45 patients and a high PIV (H-PIV) group comprising 44 patients. A comparative analysis of survival rates indicated that patients with elevated PIV had a shorter median PFS of 4.0 months compared to 8.0 months in the low PIV group (P = 0.797), as well as a reduced median OS of 19.0 months versus not available (NA) in the low PIV group (P = 0.215).

Conclusion

Our study results did not reveal a statistically significant association between H-PIV measurements and reduced PFS or OS. However, PIV effectively stratified newly diagnosed high-grade glioma patients into two distinct groups with significantly different PFS and OS outcomes.