Retrospective cohort study finds NPAR predicts treatment response and survival in non-metastatic breast cancer, suggesting risk stratification benefits.
Background/Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the prognostic and predictive significance of the pretreatment neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio (NPAR) in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer. NPAR is a composite biomarker reflecting both systemic inflammatory activity and nutritional status. Its association with treatment response and survival outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy was evaluated. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 194 patients diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 2004 and 2024. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the optimal NPAR cut-off value. Patients were categorized into low-NPAR (n = 150) and high-NPAR (n = 44) groups. Results: Clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the groups. However, patients with elevated NPAR values demonstrated poorer treatment responses. The objective response rate was significantly lower in the high-NPAR group compared to the low-NPAR group (70% vs. 87%). In addition, progressive disease occurred more frequently in patients with high NPAR values (16% vs. 5%). Survival analysis revealed markedly worse outcomes among patients with elevated NPAR. Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed high NPAR as an independent predictor of reduced overall survival (HR: 3.79; 95% CI: 1.68–8.80). Conclusions: Elevated pretreatment NPAR values are associated with inferior response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and unfavorable long-term survival outcomes. NPAR may serve as a simple and cost-effective biomarker for risk stratification and could assist clinicians in identifying patients who may benefit from more individualized therapeutic strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uçar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: