Back

Prognostic Significance of Cerebrospinal Fluid Glucose, Protein, and White Blood Cell Count in Breast Cancer Leptomeningeal Disease.

Gouli, S.; Niraula, S.; Baran, A.; Zhang, H.; O'Regan, R.; Mohile, N.; Anders, C.; Hardy, S.; Dhakal, A.

2026-02-09 oncology
10.64898/2026.02.07.26345775 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundLeptomeningeal disease (LMD) is a serious complication of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with poor survival. This single-institution retrospective study compares overall survival (OS) among MBC patients with LMD based on CSF parameters (glucose, protein, and WBC count) MethodologyMBC patients who were diagnosed with LMD between 2010-2023 at Wilmot Cancer Institute were screened for eligibility. Only those with available data on CSF glucose, protein, and WBC count were included. OS was assessed via the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Cox models were used for multivariate analysis. ResultsOut of 69 patients with MBC LMD, 28 had CSF data and were included in the final analysis. The CSF cytology-positive cohort had significantly lower glucose levels vs the CSF cytology-negative cohort [median (IQR) 40 (18-58) vs 64 (53-92) mg/dl, p=0.006]. Median CSF WBC count was significantly higher in the CSF cytology positive cohort vs the CSF cytology negative cohort [median (IQR) 13 (6-44) vs. 2(2-4)cells/mm3, p=0.001]. When stratified by CSF cytology results and CSF glucose levels, the CSF cytology negative, glucose-low group was associated with the worst OS, while the CSF cytology negative, normal/high glucose group was associated with the best OS(p=0.03) in an unadjusted analysis. Multivariate analysis confirmed that low CSF glucose was independently associated with poorer survival [HR 4.64 (1.71, 13.2)]. Neither CSF protein levels nor CSF WBC counts were significantly associated with OS in unadjusted and multivariate analyses. ConclusionLow CSF glucose was associated with worse OS than normal/high CSF glucose. There was insufficient evidence to suggest that CSF protein or CSF WBC counts were associated with OS.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
3
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
4
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.8%
6
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.0%
9
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
10
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.4%
11
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
12
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.3%
13
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
14
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
15
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
16
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
17
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
18
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
19
OncoImmunology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
20
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 57%
0.7%
22
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
23
FEBS Open Bio
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
24
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
25
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
Cancer Letters
32 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%
27
Immunology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
npj Breast Cancer
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
29
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
30
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%