Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42598663›Full record

ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2026

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as prognostic factor in metastatic breast cancer.

Gustavo Motta Cabello Dos Santos, Nereida Kilza Costa-Lima, Isabela da Mata Tiezzi, Giovana Kobayashi Pavão, Israel Geraldo Silva, Priscila Malara Maia, Hélio Humberto Angotti Carrara, Daniel Guimarães Tiezzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gustavo Motta Cabello Dos SantosUniversidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Ribeirão PretoSP Brazil Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9497-5236
Nereida Kilza Costa-LimaUniversidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Ribeirão PretoSP Brazil Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7139-8883
Isabela da Mata TiezziUniversidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Ribeirão PretoSP Brazil Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2411-0528
Giovana Kobayashi PavãoUniversidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Ribeirão PretoSP Brazil Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8220-4386
Israel Geraldo SilvaUniversidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Ribeirão PretoSP Brazil Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8907-6880
Priscila Malara MaiaUniversidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Ribeirão PretoSP Brazil Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2482-1906
Hélio Humberto Angotti CarraraUniversidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Ribeirão PretoSP Brazil Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1477-2805
Daniel Guimarães TiezziUniversidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Ribeirão PretoSP Brazil Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2660-0093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to analyze the role of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a prognostic factor in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: A retrospective cohort study including 359 recurrent MBC patients was performed. Clinical and pathological attributes were retrieved from patients' medical files and their importance in the overall survival were evaluated using the Cox univariate and multivariate proportional hazard models. A confidence interval of 95% was used to select significant variables and the Wald test was used to infer the best NLR cutoff value to discriminate into low and high categories. Results: In univariate analyses, the variables estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expressions, previous treatment with adjuvant chemo, NLR, PLR (platelet-lymphocyte ratio), age at diagnosis and the main metastatic site (bone/lymph node, visceral or central nervous system) variables were significant to determine the hazards. After filtering the collinear variables, the final model was tested with 6 variables based on 339 patients and the NLR at the time of the recurrence diagnosis (NLR_rec), the hormone receptor (ER or PR) status and the age at diagnosis were considered significant. The best NLR_rec value to discriminate against patients was 4.43 (Wald test= 51.7) and there were 239 patients categorized as low and 111 as high NLR category. The median overall survival time was 18 and 4 months in NLR-low and NLR-high groups, respectively (p< 0.001). Conclusion: NLR is an independent prognostic factor in recurrent MBC patients.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsLymphocytesNeutrophilsAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLymphocyte CountMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisPrognosisRetrospective StudiesCancer survivalMetastatic breast cancerNeutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratioPrognostic biomarkerSystemic inflammation

Identifiers

PMID42598663
PMCPMC13472547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.