Value of NLR， CEA combined with coagulation indicators in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast nodules with a diameter ≤ 1.0 cm

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn371439-20230513-00100

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To explore the value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio （NLR）， carcinoembryonic antigen （CEA） combined with coagulation indicators prothrombin time （PT）， activated partialthromboplastin time （APTT）， thrombin time （TT）， fibrinogen （FIB） in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast nodules with a diameter of ≤1.0 cm. Methods Patients with breast nodule diameter ≤1.0 cm who underwent physical examination in the Cancer Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from January 2017 to March 2023 were selected as the study objects. Patients admitted from January 2017 to June 2020 were defined as the training set， and patients admitted from July 2020 to March 2023 were defined as the validation set. In the training set， there were 83 patients with benign breast nodules and 106 patients with breast cancer； In the validation set， there were 109 patients with benign breast nodules and 136 patients with breast cancer. The influencing factors of benign and malignant breast nodules were analyzed by logistic regression. Binary logistic regression was used to construct the diagnosis and prediction model of benign and malignant breast nodules. Receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of each index and diagnostic prediction model for benign and malignant breast nodules. Results There were statistically significant differences between patients with benign breast nodules and patients with breast cancer in the training and validation sets in neutrophils（t=6.76， P<0.001； t=9.14， P<0.001）， lymphocytes （t=7.67， P<0.001； t=17.00， P<0.001）， NLR（t=13.97， P<0.001； t=17.41， P<0.001）， CEA （t=33.44， P<0.001； t=8.15， P<0.001）， PT （t=15.81， P<0.001； t=60.15， P<0.001）， APTT （t=39.50， P<0.001； t=16.34， P<0.001）， TT （t=13.34， P<0.001； t=14.37， P<0.001）， FIB （t=16.66， P<0.001； t=20.30， P<0.001）. The results of univariate analysis showed that neutrophils （OR=3.52， 95%CI： 1.26-5.37， P=0.036）， lymphocytes （OR=2.64， 95%CI： 1.52-3.72， P=0.033）， NLR （OR=1.96， 95%CI： 1.15-3.42， P<0.001）， CEA （OR=2.16， 95%CI： 1.29-3.05， P<0.001）， PT （OR=1.75， 95%CI： 1.17-2.69， P<0.001）， APTT （OR=3.11， 95%CI： 1.55-5.38， P<0.001）， TT （OR=2.59， 95%CI： 1.38-4.11， P<0.001）， FIB （OR=2.89， 95%CI： 1.36-4.55， P<0.001） were all influencing factors that affected the benign and malignant breast nodules with a diameter ≤1.0 cm. The results of multivariate analysis showed that NLR （OR=2.06， 95%CI： 1.32-2.76， P<0.001）， CEA （OR=1.19， 95%CI： 1.09-1.37， P=0.008）， PT （OR=1.63， 95%CI： 1.05-2.11， P<0.001）， APTT （OR=1.52， 95%CI： 1.13-2.34， P<0.001）， TT （OR=1.64， 95%CI： 1.14-2.74， P<0.001）， FIB （OR=1.42， 95%CI： 1.11-1.89， P<0.001） were all independent influencing factors on the benign and malignant breast nodules with a diameter ≤1.0 cm. ROC curve analysis results showed that the area under curve （AUC） of NLR， CEA， PT， APTT， TT， FIB in the diagnosis of breast cancer was 0.83， 0.65， 0.69， 0.72， 0.73， 0.70 respectively， in the training set. The sensitivity of NLR in the diagnosis of breast cancer was 76%， and the specificity was 69%. A diagnostic prediction model was established based on statistically significant indicators in multivariate analysis， with logit （P）=1.76×NLR+21.42×CEA+5.14×PT+5.34×APTT+5.78×TT+6.52×FIB. ROC curve analysis showed that the AUC of the diagnostic prediction model used for patient differential diagnosis in the training and validation sets was 0.81 and 0.80 respectively. The AUC of diagnosis prediction model for breast cancer diagnosis of patients aged ≤60 years old and >60 years old was 0.79 and 0.77 respectively， with sensitivity of 82% and 80%， specificity of 75% and 83% respectively. The AUC of diagnosis prediction model for breast cancer with tumor diameter <0.3 cm， 0.3-0.6 cm and 0.7-1.0 cm was 0.63， 0.74 and 0.91 respectively， with sensitivity of 68%， 73%， 81%， and specificity of 72%， 77%， 84%. Conclusion NLR， CEA， PT， APTT， TT and FIB are all independent influencing factors that affect the benign and malignant breast nodules with a diameter ≤1.0 cm. The prediction model constructed by NLR and CEA combined with coagulation indexes PT， APTT， TT and FIB has high diagnostic efficiency for benign and malignant breast nodules with a diameter ≤1.0 cm.

Key words: Breast neoplasms, Carcinoembryonic antigen, Diagnosis， differential, Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, Coagulation indicators

Wang Jing, Xu Wenting. Value of NLR， CEA combined with coagulation indicators in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast nodules with a diameter ≤ 1.0 cm[J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2023, 50(9): 520-526.

Figures/Tables 7

References 17

[1]	Stoian D, Timar B, Craina M, et al. Qualitative strain elastography-strain ratio evaluation—an important tool in breast cancer diagnostic[J]. Med Ultrason, 2016, 18(2): 195-200. DOI: 10.11152/mu.2013.2066.182.bcd. pmid: 27239654
[2]	Lee SE, Lee E, Kim EK, et al. Application of artificial intelligence computer-assisted diagnosis originally developed for thyroid nodules to breast lesions on ultrasound[J]. J Digit Imaging, 2022, 35(6): 1699-1707. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-022-00680-1.
[3]	Faruk T, Islam MK, Arefin S, et al. The journey of elastography: background, current status, and future possibilities in breast cancer diagnosis[J]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2015, 15(5): 313-324. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2015.01.002. pmid: 25858446
[4]	Gao LY, Gu Y, Tian JW, et al. Gail model improves the diagnostic performance of the fifth edition of ultrasound BI-RADS for predicting breast cancer: a multicenter prospective study[J]. Acad Radiol, 2022, 29(Suppl 1): S1-S7. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.12.002.
[5]	Portale G, Bartolotta P, Azzolina D, et al. Prognostic role of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte, and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in operated rectal cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2023, 408(1): 85. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-02786-8.
[6]	Desai S, Guddati AK. Carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, cancer antigen 125, prostate-specific antigen and other cancer markers: a primer on commonly used cancer markers[J]. World J Oncol, 2023, 14(1): 4-14. DOI: 10.14740/wjon1425. pmid: 36895994
[7]	Zarychta E, Ruszkowska-Ciastek B. Cooperation between angio-genesis, vasculogenesis, chemotaxis, and coagulation in breast cancer metastases development: pathophysiological point of view[J]. Biomedicines, 2022, 10(2): 300. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10020300.
[8]	Yang Y, Yang X, Zou J, et al. Evaluation of photodynamic therapy efficiency using an in vitro three-dimensional microfluidic breast cancer tissue model[J]. Lab Chip, 2015, 15(3): 735-744. DOI: 10.1039/c4lc01065e. pmid: 25428803
[9]	Koh J, Kim MJ. Introduction of a new staging system of breast cancer for radiologists: an emphasis on the prognostic stage[J]. Korean J Radiol, 2019, 20(1): 69-82. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2018.0231. pmid: 30627023
[10]	Swanner J, Fahrenholtz CD, Tenvooren I, et al. Silver nanoparticles selectively treat triple-negative breast cancer cells without affecting non-malignant breast epithelial cells in vitro and in vivo[J]. FASEB Bioadv, 2019, 1(10): 639-660. DOI: 10.1096/fba.2019-00021. pmid: 32123812
[11]	Onuma S, Hashimoto I, Suematsu H, et al. Clinical effects of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio/serum albumin ratio in patients with gastric cancer after gastrectomy[J]. J Pers Med, 2023, 13(3): 432. DOI: 10.3390/jpm13030432.
[12]	Pan C, Wu QV, Voutsinas J, et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and peripheral blood biomarkers correlate with survival outcomes but not response among head and neck and salivary cancer treated with pembrolizumab and vorinostat[J]. Head Neck, 2023, 45(2): 391-397. DOI: 10.1002/hed.27252.
[13]	Dawood ZS, Alaimo L, Lima HA, et al. Circulating tumor DNA, imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen: comparison of surveillance strategies among patients who underwent resection of colorectal cancer—a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2023, 30(1): 259-274. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12641-7.
[14]	Lyu SY, Zhang Y, Zhang MW, et al. Diagnostic value of artificial intelligence automatic detection systems for breast BI-RADS 4 nodules[J]. World J Clin Cases, 2022, 10(2): 518-527. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i2.518.
[15]	Zhai X, Wang C, Li S, et al. Bone marrow metastasis from advanced gastric cancer complicated with disseminated intravascular coagulation: a highly aggressive but manageable disease subtype[J]. Cancer Commun (Lond), 2022, 42(4): 350-354. DOI: 10.1002/cac2.12277.
[16]	Ording AG, Søgaard M, Nielsen PB, et al. Oral anti-coagulant treatment patterns in atrial fibrillation patients diagnosed with cancer: a Danish nationwide cohort study[J]. Br J Haematol, 2022, 197(2): 223-231. DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18060.
[17]	Grandl S, Scherer K, Sztrókay-Gaul A, et al. Improved visualization of breast cancer features in multifocal carcinoma using phase-contrast and dark-field mammography: an ex vivo study[J]. Eur Radiol, 2015, 25(12): 3659-3668. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3773-5. pmid: 25956934

基线资料	训练集				验证集
基线资料	良性乳腺结节患者（n=83）	乳腺癌患者（n=106）	χ²/t值	P值	良性乳腺患者（n=109）	乳腺癌患者（n=136）	χ²/t值	P值
年龄（岁）
≤60	56	63	1.29	0.256	69	82	0.23	0.630
>60	27	43	1.29	0.256	40	54	0.23	0.630
TNM分期
Ⅰa	-	32			-	40
Ⅰb	-	41			-	59
Ⅱa	-	33			-	37
分化程度
低分化	-	29			-	38
中分化	-	34			-	38
高分化	-	43			-	60
中性粒细胞（×10⁹/L）	3.59±0.88	4.67±1.23	6.76	<0.001	2.22±0.51	1.51±0.67	9.14	<0.001
淋巴细胞（×10⁹/L）	2.13±0.48	1.49±0.63	7.67	<0.001	2.69±0.51	1.33±0.70	17.00	<0.001
NLR	1.34±0.36	2.59±0.75	13.97	<0.001	1.41±0.32	2.61±0.66	17.41	<0.001
CEA（ng/ml）	2.34±0.45	7.65±1.39	33.44	<0.001	3.48±0.76	4.55±1.19	8.15	<0.001
PT（s）	14.63±2.29	20.23±2.51	15.81	<0.001	24.82±4.16	56.39±4.02	60.15	<0.001
APTT（s）	25.11±3.78	52.69±5.41	39.50	<0.001	16.02±4.31	24.98±4.23	16.34	<0.001
TT（s）	15.38±3.57	23.03±4.16	13.34	<0.001	2.76±0.71	1.63±0.52	14.37	<0.001
FIB（g/L）	2.97±0.63	1.58±0.48	16.66	<0.001	2.73±0.45	1.60±0.44	20.30	<0.001