
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39251691
72027
10.1038/s41598-024-72027-5
Article
Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of cardiovascular mortality in cancer survivors
He Yan
Liu Xing
Wang Min
Ke Honghong
Ge Chenliang gechenliang2020@163.com

grid.412594.f 0000 0004 1757 2961 Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6, Shuangyong Road, Qingxiu District, Nanning, 530021 Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region China
9 9 2024
9 9 2024
2024
14 2098020 7 2024
3 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
This study aims to evaluate the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a predictive biomarker for cardiovascular mortality among cancer patients, utilizing data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). From the NHANES dataset (2007–2018), we analyzed 4974 cancer survivors, investigating the prognostic significance of NLR for all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer-specific mortality. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Cox regression and Kaplan–Meier methods. Optimal NLR cutoffs were identified as 2.61 for differentiating the higher NLR group from lower NLR group. Elevated NLR levels significantly correlated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07–1.14, P < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08–1.21, P < 0.001) in adjusted models. Subgroup analyses revealed that age, sex, smoking status, and hypertension significantly influence NLR’s association with cardiovascular mortality. Specific cancers including breast, prostate, non-melanoma skin, colon and melanoma experience increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the higher NLR group compared to lower NLR group. Elevated NLR is a significant predictor of increased mortality in cancer patients, particularly for cardiovascular outcomes. These findings support that NLR acts as a pivotal prognostic tool with significant implications for clinical practice in the realm of cardio-oncology.

Keywords

NLR
Cardiovascular mortality
Cancer participants
NHANES
Subject terms

Cancer
Cardiovascular biology
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The confluence of oncology and cardiology, known as cardio-oncology, has emerged as a critical field of investigation amidst the rising tide of cancer survivorship and the attendant surge in long-term cardiovascular complications1. While advancements in cancer treatments have extended lives, they have also introduced a spectrum of cardiotoxic effects, particularly through chemotherapy and radiation therapy2. Despite significant strides in delineating the cardiovascular risks facing cancer patients, a glaring lacuna persists in the identification of precise predictors or biomarkers of cardiac mortality within this cohort. This gap highlights an urgent need for innovative methodologies to predict and attenuate the cardiovascular impact of cancer therapies3,4.

The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a straightforward and readily accessible inflammatory marker, has garnered attention for its prognostic significance across various clinical settings5,6. Its elevation is consistently associated with poor outcomes in a range of conditions, from cardiovascular diseases to diverse cancers, underscoring its role in systemic inflammation and immune response modulation7–9. While the prognostic value of NLR in predicting overall mortality in contexts such as breast cancer and coronary heart disease is established, its potential in forecasting cardiac mortality among cancer patients remains underexplored5,10.

Considering the intricate interplay between inflammation, cancer, and cardiovascular disease, this study posits that NLR could be a pivotal biomarker for identifying cancer patients at an increased risk of cardiac mortality. By harnessing data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), this retrospective cohort study aims to illuminate the association between NLR and cardiac mortality in cancer patients, thus seeking to bridge a critical knowledge gap in cardio-oncology. This endeavor not only furthers our understanding of the biomarkers that could guide clinical decision-making but also heralds a step towards personalized medicine, where indicators like NLR could inform intervention strategies, optimizing outcomes at the nexus of cancer treatment and cardiovascular risk management.

Methods

Study population

The study utilized data from NHANES, a comprehensive research program conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) aimed at assessing the health and nutritional status of the American population through interviews, examinations, dietary, and laboratory data11–15. The NHANES protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Center for Health Statistics, adhering to the Declaration of Helsinki, with informed consent obtained from all participants. Our analysis encompassed NHANES public data files spanning from 1999 to 2018. From an initial dataset of 108,858 participants, 64,956 individuals with available survival data were identified. Specifically focusing on cancer survivors, we selected 5661 participants, excluding those lacking NLR data (n = 687), culminating in a cohort of 4974 cancer survivors for our study (Fig. 1). Cancer diagnoses were self-reported, confirmed by a physician’s diagnosis, with cancer type further categorized based on participant responses. Complete blood count tests, utilizing Beckman Coulter methodology, provided the necessary data for calculating the NLR by dividing the neutrophil count by the lymphocyte count. The linkage of NHANES participants to death certificate records from the National Death Index facilitated follow-up for mortality outcomes, with follow-up duration measured in person-months from the interview date until death, loss to follow-up, or the end of the study period on December 31, 2019. Cause of death was classified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for cardiovascular deaths (I00-I09, I11, I13, and I20-I51) and cancer-specific mortality (C00-C97)16.Fig. 1 The flow chart of participants inclusion and exclusion in current study. NLR neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio.

Covariates

Demographic and clinical information, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking history, and race (Mexican American, Other Hispanic, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, and Other Race), were collected. Educational attainment was categorized into less than high school, high school graduate, some college or associate degree, and college graduate. Marital status was classified into married or living with a partner, never married or separated or divorced or widowed. The ratio of family income to poverty level was categorized as < 1, 1 to 3, or > 3. Pre-existing comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), hypertension (HBP), high cholesterol, stroke, chronic bronchitis, and liver diseases, were identified based on physician-diagnosed conditions documented in the NHANES data.

Statistical analysis

We accounted for the complex survey design of NHANES by incorporating sample weights, clustering and stratification. To achieve nationally representative estimates, the original survey weights were adjusted and utilized in the analysis, taking into account the appropriate adjustments17. Data analysis was conducted using R software version 4.3.1. Categorical variables were analyzed using Rao-Scott adjusted Chi-square test and continuous variables were analyzed using weighted mean comparisons. The optimal NLR cutoff point corresponding to the most significant association with survival outcomes was obtained by maximally selected rank statistics based on the ‘maxstat’ package (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=maxstat)18,19, which were then used to separate participants into higher- and lower-NLR groups. The association of the NLR with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and cancer-specific mortality among participants was assessed by survey-weighted Cox regression analysis. Two models were constructed to adjust for possible confounding factors. Model 1 was adjusted for gender, age, race, marital status, educational level, family income level, smoke history. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for the presence of comorbidities such as DM, CHD, HF, HBP, high cholesterol, stroke, chronic bronchitis and liver diseases. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) with four knots was adopted to visualize the potentially nonlinear association between the NLR and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and cancer-specific mortality. The probabilities of survival outcomes were calculated according to the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. The association of NLR values with mortality was analyzed by using subgroups based on age, sex, smoking status and HBP, and their interactions were explored. A two-tailed p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. In sensitivity analysis, we excluded participants with a follow-up duration of less than 1 year, as well as those who died due to accidental events. Due to the favorable prognosis of non-melanoma skin cancer, we also removed subjects with non-melanoma skin cancer and re-analyzed the data accordingly.

Results

Characteristics of the study population

In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 4974 cancer survivors were analyzed, representing an extrapolated patient population of 21,256,627 in the United States. Participants were stratified into two groups based on the optimal NLR cutoff value of 2.61, identified through maximally selected rank statistics. Those with NLR > 2.61 comprised the higher NLR group (n = 1836), while those with NLR ≤ 2.61 formed the lower NLR group (n = 3138). The higher NLR group exhibited a greater proportion of older individuals, males and non-Hispanic whites. Additionally, this group showed a higher prevalence of marital status categorized as never married, widowed, divorced, or separated. Comorbidities such as HF, CHD, DM, stroke and HBP were more prevalent in the higher NLR group. No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of BMI, educational level, smoking history and other comorbidities, including high cholesterol, chronic bronchitis, and liver diseases. Detailed cancer type distribution and additional characteristics are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Characteristic of participants.

Characteristics	Lower NLR (n = 3138)	Higher NLR (n = 1836)	P value	
Estimated N	13,881,246	7,375,381		
NLR	1.77 (0.49)	3.85 (1.58)	 < 0.001	
Neutrophils (1000 cells/μL)	3.83 (1.34)	5.39 (1.79)	 < 0.001	
Lymphocyte (1000 cells/μL)	2.47 (1.85)	1.48 (0.51)	 < 0.001	
Age (year)	60.66 (14.81)	66.03 (14.14)	 < 0.001	
BMI (kg/m2)	28.71 (6.25)	28.72 (6.60)	0.962	
Gender (%)	 < 0.001	
 Male	37.9%	48.9%		
 Female	62.1%	51.1%		
Race/ethnicity	0.001	
 Mexican American	2.6%	1.8%		
 Non Hispanic White	85.5%	89.2%		
 Non Hispanic Black	5.8%	3.9%		
 Other Race	6.1%	5.1%		
Education level	0.865	
 Less than High school	14.7%	14.8%		
 High school	22.3%	23.7%		
 Some college or associate degree	31.1%	30.5%		
 College graduate or above	31.8%	31.0%		
Married state	0.034	
 Never married/widowed/divorced/separated	32.4%	36.9%		
 Married/living with partner	67.6%	63.1%		
Smoke history	0.120	
 Ever	53.6%	56.4%		
 Never	46.4%	43.6%		
Ratio of family income to poverty level	 < 0.001	
 < 1	9.2%	8.2%		
 1–3	37.2%	45.1%		
 > 3	53.6%	46.7%		
Pre-exist comorbidities	
 HF (%)	 < 0.001	
  Yes	4.6%	9.8%		
  No	95.4%	90.2%		
 CHD (%)	 < 0.001	
  Yes	6.6%	10.6%		
  No	93.4%	89.4%		
 Stroke (%)	0.007	
  Yes	5.7%	8.6%		
  No	94.3%	91.4%		
 Diabetes (%)	0.001	
  Yes	13.9%	18.4%		
  No	86.1%	81.6%		
 HBP	 < 0.001	
  Yes	47.6%	56.7%		
  No	52.4%	43.3%		
 High cholesterol (%)	0.755	
  Yes	47.8%	48.4%		
  No	52.2%	51.6%		
 Chronic bronchitis (%)	0.922	
  Yes	11.1%	11.2%		
  No	88.9%	88.8%		
 Liver condition (%)	0.971	
  Yes	5.4%	5.2%		
  No	94.6%	94.8%		
 Cancer type	 < 0.001	
  Non-melanoma skin	30.0%	26.8%		
  Breast	13.9%	17.3%		
  Cervix	9.3%	6.5%		
  Prostate	8.2%	11.4%		
  Melanoma	8.0%	7.4%		
  Colon	4.5%	4.4%		
  Uterus	4.2%	2.3%		
  Ovary	2.5%	1.1%		
  Lymphoma	2.4%	2.1%		
  Thyroid	2.3%	1.9%		
  Bladder	1.6%	1.9%		
  Kidney	1.3%	1.3%		
  Lung	1.2%	3.0%		
  Testis	1.2%	1.1%		
  Leukemia	1.0%	0.6%		
  Stomach	0.6%	0.2%		
  Bone	0.5%	0.4%		
  Liver	0.5%	0.2%		
  Brain	0.4%	0.2%		
  Mouth	0.4%	1.1%		
  Esophagus	0.3%	0.4%		
  Rectum	0.3%	0.6%		
  Soft tissue	0.3%	0.3%		
  Larynx	0.2%	0.8%		
  Blood	0.1%	0.3%		
  Other type	5.0%	6.2%		
All estimates accounted for complex survey designs. All numbers in the table are weighted percentages or means.

NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, BMI body-mass index, HF heart failure, CHD coronary heart disease, HBP hypertension.

Association of NLR with mortality outcomes

During a median follow-up of 7.66 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 3.91–12.50 years), 1841 (37.1%) of the 4974 cancer participants died. This included 401 (8.1%) cardiovascular disease deaths and 539 (10.8%) cancer-specific deaths. In the unadjusted model, increased NLR values were significantly associated with higher risks of all-cause mortality (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.15–1.25, P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16–1.31, P < 0.001), and cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.09–1.21, P < 0.001). Multivariate adjustment revealed that each unit increase in NLR was correlated with an 11% increase (Model 1, HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07–1.14, P < 0.001) and a 10% increase (Model 2, HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07–1.13, P < 0.001) in the risk of all-cause mortality. Similarly, each unit increase in NLR was associated with a 14% (Model 1, HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08–1.21, P < 0.001) and 12% (Model 2, HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06–1.18, P < 0.001) increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. For cancer-specific mortality, the increases were 7% (Model 1, HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01–1.12, P = 0.014) and 6% (Model 2, HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01–1.12, P = 0.023), respectively (Table 2). Table 2 The relationships between NLR and mortality in cancer participants.

Mortality	NLR	Lower NLR (n = 3138)	Higher NLR (n = 1836)	
HR	95% CI	P value	HR	HR	95% CI	P value	
All-cause mortality	
 Unadjusted	1.21	1.15–1.25	 < 0.001	Ref	2.02	1.73–2.36	 < 0.001	
 Model 1	1.11	1.07–1.14	 < 0.001	Ref	1.44	1.27–1.63	 < 0.001	
 Model 2	1.10	1.07–1.13	 < 0.001	Ref	1.38	1.22–1.55	 < 0.001	
Cardiovascular mortality	
 Unadjusted	1.23	1.16–1.31	 < 0.001	Ref	2.72	2.11–3.52	 < 0.001	
 Model 1	1.14	1.08–1.21	 < 0.001	Ref	1.74	1.36–2.22	 < 0.001	
 Model 2	1.12	1.06–1.18	 < 0.001	Ref	1.63	1.27–2.09	 < 0.001	
Cancer-specific mortality	
 Unadjusted	1.15	1.09–1.21	 < 0.001	Ref	1.92	1.54–2.41	 < 0.001	
 Model 1	1.07	1.01–1.12	0.014	Ref	1.48	1.19–1.86	 < 0.001	
 Model 2	1.06	1.01–1.12	0.023	Ref	1.45	1.17–1.79	 < 0.001	
Survey sample weights were taken into consideration in the Cox models accompanying the NHANES data. Model 1 was adjusted for gender, age, race, marital status, educational level, family income level, smoke history. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for the presence of comorbidities such as DM, CHD, HF, HBP, high cholesterol, stroke, chronic bronchitis and liver diseases.

HF heart failure, CHD coronary heart disease, HBP hypertension, DM Diabetes.

The higher NLR group showed a significant elevation in the risk for all-cause mortality, from the unadjusted model (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.73–2.36, P < 0.001) to the adjusted models (Models 1 and 2: HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27–1.63, P < 0.001; HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.22–1.55, P < 0.001). A similar trend was observed for cardiovascular mortality (unadjusted HR 2.72, 95% CI 2.11–3.52, P < 0.001; Model 1 HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.36–2.22, P < 0.001; Model 2 HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.27–2.09, P < 0.001) and cancer-specific mortality (unadjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.54–2.41, P < 0.001; Model 1 HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19–1.86, P < 0.001; Model 2 HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17–1.79, P < 0.001) (Table 2).

Nonlinear associations and survival rates

RCS analysis indicated a nonlinear relationship between NLR and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cancer-specific mortality among cancer participants (P for nonlinearity = 0.002, 0.042, and < 0.001, respectively) (Fig. 2). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis demonstrated significantly lower survival rates for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cancer-specific mortality in the higher NLR group compared to the lower NLR group (P < 0.001) (Fig. 3).Fig. 2 The association of NLR with all-cause (A), cardiovascular mortality (B) and cancer-specific mortality (C) among cancer participants visualized by restricted cubic spline (NLR breakpoint:1.42,2.25,1.66). Hazard ratios were adjusted for gender, age, race, marital status, educational level, family income level, smoke history and presence of comorbidities including DM, CHD, HF, HBP, high cholesterol, stroke, chronic bronchitis, liver diseases. HF heart failure, CHD coronary heart disease, HBP hypertension, DM Diabetes.

Fig. 3 Kaplan–Meier curves of the survival rate of cancer participants with higher (> 2.61) and lower (≤ 2.61) NLR values. (A) All-cause mortality. (B) Cardiovascular mortality. (C) Cancer-specific mortality.

For breast cancer, all-cause mortality (P < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (P < 0.001) were higher in the higher-NLR group than the lower-NLR group, while there is no difference in cancer-specific mortality (P = 0.086) between the higher-NLR group and the lower-NLR group (Fig. S1). For prostate cancer, all-cause mortality (P < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (P = 0.003) were higher in the higher-NLR group than the lower-NLR group, while there is no difference in cancer-specific mortality (P = 0.612) between the higher-NLR group the lower-NLR group (Fig. S2). For non-melanoma skin cancer, all-cause mortality (P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (P < 0.001) and cancer-specific mortality(P = 0.001) were higher in the higher-NLR group than the lower-NLR group (Fig. S3). For colon cancer, all-cause mortality (P = 0.004) was higher in the higher-NLR group than the lower-NLR group, while there is no difference in cardiovascular mortality (P = 0.271) and cancer-specific mortality (P = 0.108) between the higher-NLR group the lower-NLR group (Fig. S4). For Melanoma, all-cause mortality (P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (P < 0.001) and cancer-specific mortality(P = 0.012) were higher in the higher-NLR group than the lower-NLR group (Fig. S5).

Subgroup analyses of the association between NLR and cardiovascular mortality

We also investigated the association of NLR levels with cardiovascular mortality by using subgroup analysis based on age, sex, smoking status and whether had HBP (Table 3). The subgroup analysis demonstrated significant variations in the association between NLR and cardiovascular mortality across various subgroups. A significant association was observed in participants over 70 years (P < 0.001) but not in those under 70 (P = 0.184). Notably, this association was significant in men (P < 0.001) but not in women (P = 0.211). Smoking status, also showed variability, with a significant association in ever smoker (P = 0.003), but not in individuals who never smoke (P = 0.064). The association was significant in participants with HBP (P < 0.001), but not in those without HBP (P = 0.081). There was also no significant interaction between the aforementioned characteristics and the NLR for cardiovascular mortality (P interaction > 0.05). Table 3 Subgroup analysis of the associations between NLR and cardiovascular mortality among cancer participants.

Subgroups	Participants N	Events N	HR	95% CI	P value	P value for interaction	
Age, year	0.346	
 < 70	
  Lower NLR	1748	32	Ref				
  Higher NLR	727	29	1.53	0.81–2.88	0.184		
 > 70	
  Lower NLR	1390	150	Ref				
  Higher NLR	1109	190	1.79	1.37–2.32	 < 0.001		
Gender	0.241	
 Male	
  Lower NLR	1316	93	Ref				
  Higher NLR	1023	153	1.98	1.40–2.81	 < 0.001		
 Female	
  Lower NLR	1822	89	Ref				
  Higher NLR	813	66	1.27	0.87–1.87	0.211		
 Smoke	0.252	
 Ever	
  Lower NLR	1671	102	Ref				
  Higher NLR	1081	135	1.66	1.19–2.32	0.002		
 Never	
  Lower NLR	1467	80	Ref				
  Higher NLR	755	84	1.49	0.97–2.28	0.064		
HBP	0.849	
 Yes	
  Lower NLR	1688	122	Ref				
  Higher NLR	1109	165	1.73	1.29–2.33	 < 0.001		
 No	
  Lower NLR	1450	60	Ref				
  Higher NLR	727	54	1.43	0.95–2.16	0.081		
Survey sample weights were taken into consideration in the Cox models accompanying the NHANES data. Multivariate Cox analysis was adjusted for gender, age, race, marital status, educational level, family income level, smoke history and the presence of comorbidities such as DM, CHD, HF, HBP, high cholesterol, stroke, chronic bronchitis and liver diseases.

Sensitivity analysis

In sensitivity analyses, where participants with follow-up time less than 1 year and those who died from accidental causes and non-melanoma skin cancer were excluded, leaving 3677 subjects. The characteristics of these participants are shown in Supplementary table 1. The NLR was still an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality from the crude model to the adjusted models (Models 1 and 2). The risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality also significantly increased in the higher-NLR group compared with lower-NLR group from the crude model to the adjusted models (Models 1 and 2).NLR was still an independent risk factor for cancer-specific mortality in the crude model, but NLR was not associated with increased cancer-specific mortality in the adjusted models (Models 1 and 2), although Cox regression analysis showed that the risk for cancer-specific mortality significantly increased in the higher-NLR group compared with lower-NLR group from the crude model to the adjusted models (Models 1 and 2) (Supplementary Table 2).

Discussion

NLR stands as a critical biomarker, reflecting the balance between inflammatory response and immune function, with elevated NLR indicating systemic inflammation and potential immune suppression. Our study presents compelling evidence that the NLR serves as a significant prognostic marker for cardiovascular mortality among cancer patients, underscoring a novel intersection between oncology and cardiology. By leveraging a comprehensive analysis of data from NHANES, we have elucidated the independent predictive power of elevated NLR levels for increased risks of all-cause mortality, with a special focus on cardiovascular mortality within this demographic. This finding is particularly groundbreaking, as it extends the utility of NLR from its recognized role in predicting overall mortality and cancer-specific outcomes to highlighting its relevance in foreseeing cardiovascular complications in cancer survivors. Despite the well-documented cardiotoxic effects of various cancer treatments, there has been a paucity of reliable biomarkers for predicting cardiovascular outcomes in this vulnerable population. Our study addresses this gap by demonstrating that NLR, a simple and readily available inflammatory marker, can effectively identify cancer participants at higher risk of cardiovascular death. This not only enriches our understanding of the interplay between cancer, inflammation, and cardiovascular disease but also opens new avenues for preventative strategies and interventions aimed at reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors.

Specifically, non-Hispanic White individuals were more prevalent in the higher NLR group, while those who were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated were also more likely to have a higher NLR. These findings suggest potential interplay between sociodemographic factors, inflammation, and cardiovascular risk in cancer survivors. Previous studies have explored the association between race and NLR, with some indicating higher NLR levels in non-Hispanic White populations compared to other racial groups20. Similarly, the association between marital status and NLR has been investigated, with studies suggesting that unmarried individuals, particularly those who are widowed or divorced, may exhibit higher levels of inflammation21. This could be related to psychosocial stressors, reduced social support, and lifestyle factors associated with marital status. Several studies have previously highlighted NLR’s value in predicting overall and disease-specific mortality, particularly within oncology and cardiology disciplines22–26. Consistent with the broader scientific consensus, our findings reaffirm NLR’s significant prognostic utility, notably extending its relevance to the specific context of cardiovascular mortality among cancer patients. This alignment with existing literature underscores the robustness of NLR as a marker of systemic inflammation and its associated adverse outcomes across diverse patient populations. Furthermore, variations in study designs, methodologies, and patient demographics across the existing research landscape have contributed to differing magnitudes of risk associated with NLR. Our study's utilization of the NHANES dataset, known for its diverse and representative sample of the American population, provides a comprehensive backdrop against which the predictive value of NLR for cardiovascular mortality in cancer patients can be more accurately gauged. This approach enhances the generalizability of our findings and offers valuable insights into the potential for NLR to guide clinical decision-making in a broad spectrum of patient care scenarios.

The results from our RCS analysis reveal a nuanced, nonlinear relationship between the NLR and various mortality outcomes (all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer) among cancer patients. This nonlinearity suggests that the risk associated with NLR levels does not increase in a straightforward, proportional manner across the spectrum of NLR values. Instead, the risk of mortality exhibits distinct phases of acceleration and plateau, implying that the impact of systemic inflammation indicated by NLR on mortality risks is more complex than previously understood. The identified NLR cutoff values-1.42 for all-cause mortality, 2.25 for cardiovascular mortality, and 1.66 for cancer-specific mortality—underscore this complexity, indicating that the level of systemic inflammation predictive of mortality risk varies significantly depending on the type of mortality considered. These cutoffs illuminate critical thresholds beyond which the risk of death sharply increases, providing valuable insights for clinicians. Specifically, they highlight the importance of closely monitoring and potentially intervening in participants who exhibit NLR levels beyond these thresholds, given their heightened risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular events, and cancer. The variance in NLR cutoff values across different mortality outcomes further emphasizes the multifaceted role of inflammation in the pathophysiology of these conditions. It suggests that while systemic inflammation broadly contributes to mortality risk, the extent of its impact and the mechanisms through which it operates may differ significantly between cardiovascular and cancer-related deaths27. The findings from our study highlight NLR not only as a biomarker of systemic inflammation but also as a pivotal prognostic tool with significant implications for clinical practice in the realm of cardio-oncology. The demonstrated predictive value of NLR for cardiovascular mortality among cancer participants underscores the necessity of integrating this simple, cost-effective marker into existing risk assessment models. By doing so, clinicians can more accurately identify cancer participants who are at an elevated risk of cardiovascular complications, enabling the implementation of tailored monitoring and intervention strategies.

Our subgroup analysis investigating the association between NLR and cardiovascular mortality reveals insightful variations across different demographic and clinical subgroups, suggesting that the prognostic value of NLR is influenced by specific patient characteristics28,29. Notably, a significant relationship between elevated NLR and increased cardiovascular mortality risk was observed in participants aged over 70 years, indicating that older individuals may be particularly sensitive to the cardiovascular risks associated with systemic inflammation. Conversely, this association was not evident in the younger cohort (under 70 years), suggesting age-specific mechanisms by which NLR impacts cardiovascular risk. Fest et al. found the NLR’s broad applicability as a risk indicator for mortality in the elderly30. Furthermore, the analysis underscores gender differences in the predictive value of NLR, with a significant association found in men but not in women. This distinction could reflect underlying differences in the pathophysiology of cardiovascular or in the inflammatory profiles between genders. The influence of smoking status on the NLR-cardiovascular mortality relationship further highlights the complex interplay between lifestyle factors, systemic inflammation, and cardiovascular risk, with smokers showing a significant association, possibly due to the additive effects of smoking-induced inflammation. Moreover, the presence of HBP amplifies the association between NLR and cardiovascular mortality, suggesting that systemic inflammation in the context of existing cardiovascular stressors like hypertension substantially increases the risk. This finding emphasizes the importance of monitoring and managing inflammation particularly in HBP participants to mitigate their heightened cardiovascular risk. The lack of significant interaction between these characteristics and NLR for cardiovascular mortality suggests that while NLR is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality, its predictive power is modulated by age, sex, smoking status, and the presence of hypertension. These results highlight the necessity for a nuanced approach in evaluating and utilizing NLR as a prognostic tool in clinical practice, tailoring cardiovascular risk assessment and management to the individual patient's demographic and clinical profile.

Our sensitivity analyses, after excluding participants with less than one year of follow-up and those who succumbed to accidental causes or non-melanoma skin cancer, further solidify the NLR as a potent independent risk factor for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. The refinement of our participant pool to 3677 subjects allowed for a more focused examination of NLR’s predictive validity across different mortality outcomes. Notably, the association between higher NLR values and increased risks for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality remained robust across both crude and adjusted models, reinforcing the utility of NLR as a critical marker for identifying individuals at elevated risk of cardiovascular mortality. Interestingly, while NLR emerged as an independent risk factor for cancer-specific mortality in the crude analysis, this association was attenuated upon adjustment for potential confounders in the subsequent models. Fest et al. found that higher NLR levels were independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and other mortality, but not cancer mortality30. This nuanced finding suggests that, although elevated NLR levels are indicative of an increased risk of cancer-specific mortality in a broad sense, the relationship may be influenced or masked by other variables in more complex models of analysis.

Our analysis across different cancer types reveals a nuanced view of how NLR interacts with mortality outcomes. Notably, for specific cancers such as breast, prostate, non-melanoma skin, colon, and melanoma, a consistent pattern emerges where higher NLR groups experience increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to those in the lower NLR group, underscoring NLR’s role as a broad indicator of risk across these diverse conditions. However, the relationship between NLR and cancer-specific mortality presents a more complex picture. In breast and prostate cancer participants, there was no statistically significant difference in cancer-specific mortality between the higher and lower NLR groups, suggesting that while NLR is a potent marker for overall health risk, its predictive value for cancer-specific mortality may be influenced by cancer type or stage. Conversely, for non-melanoma skin cancer and melanoma, elevated NLR was associated with increased cancer-specific mortality, indicating a stronger link between systemic inflammation and cancer progression or fatality in these contexts. Interestingly, in colon cancer patients, we observed an increase in all-cause mortality in the higher NLR group without a corresponding increase in cardiovascular or cancer-specific mortality. This might suggest that other factors, possibly related to systemic inflammation or comorbidities not directly related to cardiovascular health or cancer progression, play a significant role in overall mortality risk in this group. These findings highlight the multifaceted role of NLR as a prognostic marker across different types of cancer. They suggest that while NLR is universally associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, its relationship with cancer-specific mortality is more variable and may depend on specific tumor biology, stage at diagnosis, and underlying patient health. This underscores the importance of context when considering NLR as a prognostic tool in oncology, further research into the mechanisms underlying these associations will be crucial for leveraging NLR effectively in clinical practice to improve patient outcomes.

This study has several limitations that should be considered. First, as with all observational studies, inherent limitations exist regarding potential biases and confounders that cannot be fully adjusted for in the analysis. Our retrospective design limits the ability to infer causality between elevated NLR levels and increased cardiovascular mortality in cancer patients. Second, the reliance on self-reported cancer diagnoses may not capture all nuances of disease type, stage, or treatment history. The NHANES dataset lacks detailed information on cancer staging, specific treatment modalities received, and concomitant medication use, all of which could potentially influence the observed associations. Third, due to the cross-sectional design of NHANES, we were unable to ascertain the timing of NLR measurement relative to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Finally, while data on other potentially relevant biomarkers like C-reactive protein, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and troponin were collected, a significant proportion of these measurements were missing, precluding their inclusion in our analysis. Despite these limitations, our study provides valuable insights into the prognostic significance of NLR in a large, nationally representative cohort of cancer survivors, highlighting its potential as a readily available marker for cardiovascular risk stratification in this population.

Conclusion

Our study underscores the significant prognostic value of NLR in predicting cardiovascular mortality among cancer patients, marking a notable advancement in the intersection of oncology and cardiology. The findings highlight the potential of NLR, a simple and readily available biomarker, to significantly enhance the prognostication and management of cancer patients. By integrating NLR into existing risk assessment models, clinicians could better identify participants at increased risk for cardiovascular complications, guiding more personalized and proactive management strategies. This study not only contributes to the growing body of literature supporting the clinical utility of NLR but also paves the way for future research aimed at optimizing care for cancer survivors facing cardiovascular risks.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures.

Supplementary Tables.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-72027-5.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the participants and investigators of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Author contributions

C G chose the topic. X L, M W, H K provided methodological support. C G completed the subsequent data analysis and article writing. Y H provided guidance and assistance throughout the process. All authors revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, participated in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication, and approved the final submitted version.

Data availability

The code and data generated during the study were available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. And the original data was public on the NHANES website (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The research has followed the Tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical considerations have been rigorously followed, with all data sourced from the publicly available NHANES, which obtained informed consent from all participants and received ethical approval from the NCHS Research Ethics Review Board.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Lyon AR López-Fernández T Couch LS 2022 ESC Guidelines on cardio-oncology developed in collaboration with the European Hematology Association (EHA), the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO) and the International Cardio-Oncology Society (IC-OS): Developed by the task force on cardio-oncology of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur. Heart J. 2022 43 4229 4361 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac244 36017568
Lyon, A. R. et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines on cardio-oncology developed in collaboration with the European Hematology Association (EHA), the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO) and the International Cardio-Oncology Society (IC-OS): Developed by the task force on cardio-oncology of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 43, 4229–4361. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac244 (2022).36017568 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac244
2. Leszek P Klotzka A Bartuś S A practical approach to the 2022 ESC cardio-oncology guidelines: Comments by a team of experts—Cardiologists and oncologists Kardiol. Pol. 2023 81 1047 1063 10.33963/v.kp.96840 37660389
Leszek, P. et al. A practical approach to the 2022 ESC cardio-oncology guidelines: Comments by a team of experts—Cardiologists and oncologists. Kardiol. Pol. 81, 1047–1063. 10.33963/v.kp.96840 (2023).37660389 10.33963/v.kp.96840
3. Herrmann J Lenihan D Armenian S Defining cardiovascular toxicities of cancer therapies: An International Cardio-Oncology Society (IC-OS) consensus statement Eur. Heart J. 2022 43 280 299 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab674 34904661
Herrmann, J. et al. Defining cardiovascular toxicities of cancer therapies: An International Cardio-Oncology Society (IC-OS) consensus statement. Eur. Heart J. 43, 280–299. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab674 (2022).34904661 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab674
4. Rubio-Infante N Ramírez-Flores YA Castillo EC A systematic review of the mechanisms involved in immune checkpoint inhibitors cardiotoxicity and challenges to improve clinical safety Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022 10 851032 10.3389/fcell.2022.851032 35433707
Rubio-Infante, N. et al. A systematic review of the mechanisms involved in immune checkpoint inhibitors cardiotoxicity and challenges to improve clinical safety. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 10, 851032. 10.3389/fcell.2022.851032 (2022).35433707 10.3389/fcell.2022.851032
5. Azab B Bhatt VR Phookan J Usefulness of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in predicting short- and long-term mortality in breast cancer patients Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012 19 217 224 10.1245/s10434-011-1814-0 21638095
Azab, B. et al. Usefulness of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in predicting short- and long-term mortality in breast cancer patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 19, 217–224. 10.1245/s10434-011-1814-0 (2012).21638095 10.1245/s10434-011-1814-0
6. Regolo M Vaccaro M Sorce A Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a promising predictor of mortality and admission to intensive care unit of COVID-19 patients J. Clin. Med. 2022 11 235 10.3390/jcm11082235 35011976
Regolo, M. et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a promising predictor of mortality and admission to intensive care unit of COVID-19 patients. J. Clin. Med. 11, 235. 10.3390/jcm11082235 (2022).35011976 10.3390/jcm11082235
7. He J Li J Wang Y Hao P Hua Q Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) predicts mortality and adverse-outcomes after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Chinese people Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2014 7 4045 4056 25120783
He, J., Li, J., Wang, Y., Hao, P. & Hua, Q. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) predicts mortality and adverse-outcomes after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Chinese people. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 7, 4045–4056 (2014).25120783
8. Wang X Zhang G Jiang X Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in relation to risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events among patients undergoing angiography or cardiac revascularization: A meta-analysis of observational studies Atherosclerosis 2014 234 206 213 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2014.03.003 24681815
Wang, X. et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in relation to risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events among patients undergoing angiography or cardiac revascularization: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Atherosclerosis 234, 206–213. 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2014.03.003 (2014).24681815 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2014.03.003
9. Azab B Zaher M Weiserbs KF Usefulness of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in predicting short- and long-term mortality after non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction Am. J. Cardiol. 2010 106 470 476 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.03.062 20691303
Azab, B. et al. Usefulness of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in predicting short- and long-term mortality after non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am. J. Cardiol. 106, 470–476. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.03.062 (2010).20691303 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.03.062
10. Dong CH Wang ZM Chen SY Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predict mortality and major adverse cardiac events in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis Clin. Biochem. 2018 52 131 136 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.11.008 29132766
Dong, C. H., Wang, Z. M. & Chen, S. Y. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predict mortality and major adverse cardiac events in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Biochem. 52, 131–136. 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.11.008 (2018).29132766 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.11.008
11. Curtin LR Mohadjer LK Dohrmann SM The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Sample design, 1999–2006 Vital Health Stat. 2 2012 1 1 39
Curtin, L. R. et al. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Sample design, 1999–2006. Vital Health Stat. 2 1, 1–39 (2012).
12. Curtin LR Mohadjer LK Dohrmann SM National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Sample design, 2007–2010 Vital Health Stat. 2 2013 1 1 23
Curtin, L. R. et al. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Sample design, 2007–2010. Vital Health Stat. 2 1, 1–23 (2013).
13. Johnson CL Dohrmann SM Burt VL Mohadjer LK National health and nutrition examination survey: Sample design, 2011–2014 Vital Health Stat. 2 2014 1 1 33
Johnson, C. L., Dohrmann, S. M., Burt, V. L. & Mohadjer, L. K. National health and nutrition examination survey: Sample design, 2011–2014. Vital Health Stat. 2 1, 1–33 (2014).
14. Chen TC Clark J Riddles MK Mohadjer LK Fakhouri THI National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015–2018: Sample design and estimation procedures Vital Health Stat. 2 2020 1 1 35
Chen, T. C., Clark, J., Riddles, M. K., Mohadjer, L. K. & Fakhouri, T. H. I. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015–2018: Sample design and estimation procedures. Vital Health Stat. 2 1, 1–35 (2020).
15. Patel CJ Pho N McDuffie M A database of human exposomes and phenomes from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Sci. Data 2016 3 160096 10.1038/sdata.2016.96 27779619
Patel, C. J. et al. A database of human exposomes and phenomes from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Sci. Data 3, 160096. 10.1038/sdata.2016.96 (2016).27779619 10.1038/sdata.2016.96
16. Di D Zhang R Zhou H Exposure to phenols, chlorophenol pesticides, phthalate and PAHs and mortality risk: A prospective study based on 6 rounds of NHANES Chemosphere 2023 329 138650 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138650 37037349
Di, D. et al. Exposure to phenols, chlorophenol pesticides, phthalate and PAHs and mortality risk: A prospective study based on 6 rounds of NHANES. Chemosphere 329, 138650. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138650 (2023).37037349 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138650
17. Johnson CL Paulose-Ram R Ogden CL National health and nutrition examination survey: Analytic guidelines, 1999–2010 Vital Health Stat. 2 2013 1 1 24
Johnson, C. L. et al. National health and nutrition examination survey: Analytic guidelines, 1999–2010. Vital Health Stat. 2 1, 1–24 (2013).
18. Zhang L Chen S Wang W Wang Y Liang Y Inflammatory and nutritional scoring system for predicting prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma J. Inflamm. Res. 2023 16 7 17 10.2147/jir.s390279 36636247
Zhang, L., Chen, S., Wang, W., Wang, Y. & Liang, Y. Inflammatory and nutritional scoring system for predicting prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J. Inflamm. Res. 16, 7–17. 10.2147/jir.s390279 (2023).36636247 10.2147/jir.s390279
19. Seckinger A Meissner T Moreaux J Clinical and prognostic role of annexin A2 in multiple myeloma Blood 2012 120 1087 1094 10.1182/blood-2012-03-415588 22705595
Seckinger, A. et al. Clinical and prognostic role of annexin A2 in multiple myeloma. Blood 120, 1087–1094. 10.1182/blood-2012-03-415588 (2012).22705595 10.1182/blood-2012-03-415588
20. Ranjit N Diez-Roux AV Shea S Socioeconomic position, race/ethnicity, and inflammation in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis Circulation 2007 116 2383 2390 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.706226 18025402
Ranjit, N. et al. Socioeconomic position, race/ethnicity, and inflammation in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Circulation 116, 2383–2390 (2007).18025402 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.706226
21. Robles TF Marital quality and health: Implications for marriage in the 21st century Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 2014 23 427 432 10.1177/0963721414549043
Robles, T. F. Marital quality and health: Implications for marriage in the 21st century. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 23, 427–432 (2014).10.1177/0963721414549043
22. Vakhshoori M Nemati S Sabouhi S Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) prognostic effects on heart failure; a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2023 23 555 10.1186/s12872-023-03572-6 37957565
Vakhshoori, M. et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) prognostic effects on heart failure; a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 23, 555. 10.1186/s12872-023-03572-6 (2023).37957565 10.1186/s12872-023-03572-6
23. Mouchli M Reddy S Gerrard M Boardman L Rubio M Usefulness of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a prognostic predictor after treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Review article Ann. Hepatol. 2021 22 100249 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.08.067 32896610
Mouchli, M., Reddy, S., Gerrard, M., Boardman, L. & Rubio, M. Usefulness of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a prognostic predictor after treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Review article. Ann. Hepatol. 22, 100249. 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.08.067 (2021).32896610 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.08.067
24. Marchioni M Primiceri G Ingrosso M The clinical use of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in urothelial cancer: A systematic review Clin. Genitourin Cancer 2016 14 473 484 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.04.008 27209348
Marchioni, M. et al. The clinical use of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in urothelial cancer: A systematic review. Clin. Genitourin Cancer 14, 473–484. 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.04.008 (2016).27209348 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.04.008
25. Rossi S Basso M Strippoli A Are markers of systemic inflammation good prognostic indicators in colorectal cancer? Clin. Colorectal Cancer 2017 16 264 274 10.1016/j.clcc.2017.03.015 28412137
Rossi, S. et al. Are markers of systemic inflammation good prognostic indicators in colorectal cancer?. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 16, 264–274. 10.1016/j.clcc.2017.03.015 (2017).28412137 10.1016/j.clcc.2017.03.015
26. Sonaglioni A Lombardo M Albini A Charlson comorbidity index, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and undertreatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors predict in-hospital mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the omicron dominant period Front. Immunol. 2022 13 958418 10.3389/fimmu.2022.958418 36090992
Sonaglioni, A. et al. Charlson comorbidity index, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and undertreatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors predict in-hospital mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the omicron dominant period. Front. Immunol. 13, 958418. 10.3389/fimmu.2022.958418 (2022).36090992 10.3389/fimmu.2022.958418
27. DiGangi C Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio: Predicting cardiovascular and renal complications in patients with diabetes J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2016 28 410 414 10.1002/2327-6924.12366 27092809
DiGangi, C. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio: Predicting cardiovascular and renal complications in patients with diabetes. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 28, 410–414. 10.1002/2327-6924.12366 (2016).27092809 10.1002/2327-6924.12366
28. Salciccioli JD Marshall DC Pimentel MA The association between the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and mortality in critical illness: An observational cohort study Crit. Care 2015 19 13 10.1186/s13054-014-0731-6 25598149
Salciccioli, J. D. et al. The association between the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and mortality in critical illness: An observational cohort study. Crit. Care 19, 13. 10.1186/s13054-014-0731-6 (2015).25598149 10.1186/s13054-014-0731-6
29. Chen Y Wang W Zeng L Association between neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in US adults, 1999–2014 Int. J. Gen. Med. 2021 14 10203 10211 10.2147/ijgm.s339378 34992439
Chen, Y. et al. Association between neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in US adults, 1999–2014. Int. J. Gen. Med. 14, 10203–10211. 10.2147/ijgm.s339378 (2021).34992439 10.2147/ijgm.s339378
30. Fest J Ruiter TR Groot Koerkamp B The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is associated with mortality in the general population: The Rotterdam Study Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2019 34 463 470 10.1007/s10654-018-0472-y 30569368
Fest, J. et al. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is associated with mortality in the general population: The Rotterdam Study. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 34, 463–470. 10.1007/s10654-018-0472-y (2019).30569368 10.1007/s10654-018-0472-y
