ArticleCureus2022
Prognostic Impact of Baseline Neutrophil-to-Eosinophil Ratio in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Nivolumab Therapy in Second or Later Lines.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic role of the baseline neutrophil‒eosinophil ratio in cancer patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- The predictive value of the neutrophil/eosinophil ratio in cancer patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibition: a meta-analysis and a validation cohort in hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Eosinophils as a predictive marker of treatment-related adverse events in mRCC patients treated with first-line immune-checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Eosinophil Ratio (NER) in Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Baseline neutrophil-to-eosinophil-ratio and outcome in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab or ipilimumab/nivolumab.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Inflammation is a crucial component in carcinogenesis. The neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio (NER) has been studied as a biomarker of prognosis and predictive of response in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In the present study, we evaluated the relevance of baseline NER on the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes in real-world patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab in second or subsequent lines. We also assessed the association of baseline NER with objective response, as well as with toxicity and histology. Methods In this multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab, the last systemic absolute neutrophil and eosinophil count before treatment with nivolumab was used to calculate the NER. An additive Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify the cut-off point for NER considering PFS and the patients were allocated into low and high NER groups. Median OS and median PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator, and survival curves of groups were compared using the log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to study OS and PFS and Fisher's exact test was performed to evaluate the association of NER with the response, toxicity, and histology. Results The 49 analyzed patients had a median follow-up of nine months. The NER cut-off was established at 48, locating 29 patients in the low NER group (NER < 48) and 20 in the high NER group (NER ≥ 48). Median PFS and median OS were significantly shorter in patients with high NER versus low NER (3 vs. 30 months (p < 0.001) and 6 vs. 24 months (p = 0.002), respectively). Multivariable analyses showed that NER (HR 3.92 (95% CI: 1.66-9.23), p = 0.002) was an independent factor for PFS and that NER (HR 3.85 (95% CI: 1.33-11.17), p = 0.013) and progressive disease (HR 5.62 (95% CI: 1.88-16.83), p = 0.002) were independent factors for OS. NER was significantly associated with objective response rate (ORR) (NER ≥ 48-12.5% vs. NER < 48-87.5%, p = 0.003), immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (NER ≥ 48-10.0% vs. NER < 48-42.9%, p = 0.014), and tumor's histology as patients of high NER group had more non-clear cell carcinoma than low NER group (35.0% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.017). Conclusion Our real-world data analysis of NER in patients with mRCC confirmed the prognostic value of this biomarker, supporting clinical utility in predicting survival. Results also suggested an association between lower NER and better ORR, and that irAEs occur more frequently in patients with a lower NER. However, further large-scale prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and to validate this biomarker.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.