The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Preoperative Neutrophil‐to‐Lymphocyte Ratio as a Prognostic Predictor after Curative Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Abstract
Background: This study was designed to evaluate the impact of an elevated preoperative neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR) on outcome after curative resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: Patients undergoing resection for HCC from January 1994 to May 2007 were identified from the hepatobiliary database. Demographics, laboratory analyses, and histopathology data were analyzed. Results: A total of 96 patients were identified with a median age at diagnosis of 65 (range, 15–85) years. The 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year overall survival rates were 80%, 58%, and 52%, respectively. Although the presence of microvascular invasion, NLR ≥5, and R1 resection margin were adverse predictors of overall survival, there were no independent predictors identified on multivariate analysis. The 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year disease‐free survival rates were 74%, 63%, and 57%, respectively. Preoperative tumor biopsy, NLR ≥ 5, multiple liver tumors, microvascular invasion, and R1 resection margin were all predictors of poorer disease‐free survival. Multivariate analysis showed that a NLR ≥ 5 and R1 resection margin were independent predictors of poorer disease‐free survival. The median disease‐free survival of those with a NLR ≥ 5 was 8 months compared with 18 months for those with a NLR < 5. Conclusion: Preoperative NLR ≥ 5 was an adverse predictor of disease‐free and overall survival.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coussens, L. M., & Werb, Z. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01322 · Cited by 15,111
Zahorec, R. (2001) · Bratislava Medical Journal · doi:10.1007/bf03656390 · Cited by 1,601
Xavier, P., Belo, L., Beires, J., Rebelo, I., Martinez-de-Oliveira, J., Lunet, N., & Barros, H. (2006) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-005-0080-4 · Cited by 130
Cited by
Templeton, A. J., McNamara, M. G., Šeruga, B., Vera-Badillo, F. E., Aneja, P., Ocaña, A., Leibowitz-Amit, R., Sonpavde, G., Knox, J. J., Tran, B., et al. (2014) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/dju124 · Cited by 2,829
Hu, B., Yang, X.-R., Xu, Y., Sun, Y.-F., Sun, C., Guo, W., Zhang, X., Wang, W.-M., Qiu, S.-J., Zhou, J., et al. (2014) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-0442 · Cited by 2,493
Recurrence After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A New MORAL to the Story
Halazun, K. J., Najjar, M., Abdelmessih, R. M., Samstein, B., Griesemer, A. D., Guarrera, J. V., Kato, T., Verna, E. C., Emond, J. C., & Brown, R. S. (2017) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000001966 · Cited by 281
Alkhouri, N., Morris‐Stiff, G., Campbell, C., Lopez, R., Tamimi, T. A., Yerian, L., Zein, N. N., & Feldstein, A. E. (2012) · Liver International · doi:10.1111/j.1478-3231.2011.02639.x · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Gomez, D., Farid, S., Malik, H. Z., Young, A. L., Toogood, G. J., Lodge, J. P. A., & Prasad, K. R.
- Venue
- World Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03-14
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1757-1762
- ISSN
- 0364-2313 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-2323
- OpenAlex
- W2071520516
- Cited by
- 402
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Preoperative Neutrophil‐to‐Lymphocyte Ratio as a Prognostic Predictor after Curative Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00268-008-9552-6
- The paper
- Gomez, D., Farid, S., Malik, H. Z., Young, A. L., Toogood, G. J., Lodge, J. P. A., & Prasad, K. R. (2008). Preoperative Neutrophil‐to‐Lymphocyte Ratio as a Prognostic Predictor after Curative Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. World Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9552-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.