N:L ratio compared to CA 15/3 and CA 27/29

[ba5083]

Prior to reading this post yesterday (link below) I never knew anything about N:L ratio. After reading I found more information with a general search. My Onc has not done a CA 15/3 or CA 27/29 is several years due to the reliability or lack thereof. From what I have read many Onc find the CA 15/3 and CA 27/29 reliable by looking at trends while some think it can cause undue stress. I'm curious as to how many know about the N:L ration and how this ratio (formulated from the normal CBC w/differential) compares to those that are routinely testing their CA 15/3 and/or CA 27/29 numbers

myhealingcommunity.com/nlr/

[Trissh]

This is the first I have heard of it. Worth looking into, the CA tests can be frustrating. --Trish

[Knitter8675309]

This is interesting! I'm someone whose Ca27-29 test aligns pretty well with how my cancer is doing. I'm also a giant nerd and have a spreadsheet of all my labs from when the mets showed up. I graphed a comparison between the two and am not really seeing that big a correlation for me. I know that some of the times when my NLR spiked, it's because the meds tanked my counts. Still something to consider.

A graph showing a comparison between Ca27-29 and NLR

[ba5083 in reply to Knitter8675309]

Thanks so much for sharing. Fascinating information. Is it safe to assume when your CA-27/29 was elevated you changed treatment? Or was there a different adjustment that caused the drop in your CA-27/29?

[Knitter8675309]

No, the drops are all directly related to changes in treatment

[Healthplus1]

I have been tested with the CA 27/29 for over 20 years. For me, it has been infallible in detecting progression. I immediately know when my current treatment is not working. The rise in numbers initiates a need for a scan which has always shown progression, which leads to treatment changes. I recently changed medical providers and my new dr. ordered the ca 15/3. This is new to me so not sure how reliable. But I have asked for the ca27/29 to continue .

[TammyCross in reply to Healthplus1]

I get both the 15-3 and 27-29. The 27-29 is diagnostic for me. The 15-3 comes back sooner, and usually shows the direction the 27-29 is going to take. I find the 27-29 a more sensitive.

[HelenWi]

Very interesting but…You mentioned that the standard tumor markers lead to undue stress. But wouldn’t the N/L lead to similar stress? I think the stress comes from waiting for results… any results.

The article does mention that blood counts can be affected by chemo, so doesn’t that make N/L less reliable?

I got my diagnosis because my markers went up and most recently it was the markers that helped find my brain mets: my scans were stable, but markers kept going up. I switched drugs and marker dropped. So for me, they have been very reliable despite the fact that it is nerve-racking every month. I just try not to think about it until the day I go to see my oncologist.

Having said all that, it’s great that NL has been reliable for you. We are all so different, and it’s great to know about the latest tools. Thanks for sharing this!

[ba5083 in reply to HelenWi]

Please don't misunderstand - the N:L Ratio is something I heard about a couple of days ago. I was wondering if this group had heard of such a thing and if it corresponds to their CA 15/3 and CA 27/29 numbers. Since I don't have my CA 15/3 and CA 27/29 tested I was curious how reliable and if it corresponds with the N:L ratio. My Onc relies on scans.

[HelenWi in reply to ba5083]

Whoops, sorry! I read too fast. 😊

[Bravespirit]

Thanks for sharing this information, this is the first I’ve heard of it.