Prognostic role of pretreatment blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in advanced cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 66 cohort studies
TL;DR: Overall, high pretreatment blood NLR could be an adverse prognostic indicator for advanced tumor and large-scale prospective studies investigating its survival outcomes in specific cancer type are strongly advocated.
About: This article is published in Cancer Treatment Reviews.The article was published on 2017-07-01. It has received 209 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Hazard ratio.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The common COVID-19 abnormal hematological indexes on admission included hyperfibrinogenemia, lymphopenia, the elevation of D-dimer, and leuk Openia, which were significantly different between the mild/moderate and severe CO VID-19 groups.
189 citations
Additional excerpts
...[10] [11] [12] [13] ....
[...]
...The median period from onset to admission was 5.6±3.5 days (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) ....
[...]
TL;DR: Although the NLR and TAN hold clinical promise in their association with poor cancer prognosis, further research is required to provide robust evidence, assess causality and test clinical utility.
Abstract: Although neutrophils have been linked to the progression of cancer, uncertainty exists around their association with cancer outcomes, depending on the site, outcome and treatments considered. We aimed to evaluate the strength and validity of evidence on the association between either the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) or tumour-associated neutrophils (TAN) and cancer prognosis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 29 May 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies on neutrophil counts (here NLR or TAN) and specific cancer outcomes related to disease progression or survival. The available evidence was graded as strong, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak or uncertain through the application of pre-set GRADE criteria. A total of 204 meta-analyses from 86 studies investigating the association between either NLR or TAN and cancer outcomes met the criteria for inclusion. All but one meta-analyses found a hazard ratio (HR) which increased risk (HR > 1). We did not find sufficient meta-analyses to evaluate TAN and cancer outcomes (N = 9). When assessed for magnitude of effect, significance and bias related to heterogeneity and small study effects, 18 (9%) associations between NLR and outcomes in composite cancer endpoints (combined analysis), cancers treated with immunotherapy and some site specific cancers (urinary, nasopharyngeal, gastric, breast, endometrial, soft tissue sarcoma and hepatocellular cancers) were supported by strong evidence. In total, 60 (29%) meta-analyses presented strong or highly suggestive evidence. Although the NLR and TAN hold clinical promise in their association with poor cancer prognosis, further research is required to provide robust evidence, assess causality and test clinical utility. PROSPERO CRD42017069131
.
175 citations
TL;DR: The authors review the biomarker PD‐L1 as well as other emerging and investigational tissue‐based and serum‐based markers that have potential to better predict responders to immunotherapy.
Abstract: The emergence of immunotherapy has dramatically changed how non-small cell lung cancer is treated, and longer survival is now possible for some patients, even those with advanced disease. Although some patients achieve durable responses to checkpoint blockade, not all experience such benefits, and some suffer from significant immunotoxicities. Given this, biomarkers that predict response to therapy are essential, and testing for tumor programmed death ligand 1(PD-L1) expression is the current standard. The extent of PD-L1 expression determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) has demonstrated a correlation with treatment response, although limitations with this marker exist. Recently, tumor mutational burden has emerged as an alternative biomarker, and studies have demonstrated its utility, irrespective of the PD-L1 level of a tumor. Gene expression signatures, tumor genotype (such as the presence of an oncogenic driver mutation), as well as the density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in the tumor microenvironment also seem to affect response to immunotherapy and are being researched. Peripheral serum markers are being studied, and some have demonstrated predictive ability, although most are still investigational and need prospective validation. In the current article, the authors review the biomarker PD-L1 as well as other emerging and investigational tissue-based and serum-based markers that have potential to better predict responders to immunotherapy.
167 citations
TL;DR: Hematologic parameter such as systemic immune‐inflammation index (SII), neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet‐to-lymphocytes ratio (PLR) is associated with nivolumab efficacy in advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Abstract: Background Explore markers to predict the clinical outcomes of checkpoint inhibitors have high unmet needs The following study investigates whether hematologic parameter such as systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is associated with nivolumab efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) Methods Advanced/metastatic NSCLC patients treated with nivolumab monotherapy for second-line or further-line treatment at Jilin Cancer Hospital between March 2016 and July 2018 were enrolled in this retrospective study The optimal cutoff values of SII, NLR, and PLR for predicting efficacy and prognosis were determined according to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the areas under the ROC curve Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated and compared using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test Prognostic values of each variable were evaluated with univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression (PHR) analyses Results A total of 44 patients with advanced NSCLC were included; the median age was 60 (range: 43-74) The optimal cutoff value of SII/NLR/PLR predicted PFS and OS was 6035, 307, and 144 Low SII, NLR, and PLR were associated with longer PFS (HR for SII = 034, 95%CI 015-076, P = 0006; HR for NLR = 046, 95%CI 022-099, P = 0048; HR for PLR = 039, 95%CI 017-094, P = 0025) and OS (HR for SII = 016, 95%CI 005-051, P = 0005; HR for NLR = 020, 95%CI 006-062, P = 0002; HR for PLR = 020, 95%CI 006-073, P = 0008) NLR ≤ 307, PLR ≤ 144, SII ≤ 6035 were independently associated with longer PFS and OS Conclusion The SII, NLR, and PLR are promising prognostic predictor for patients with metastatic NSCLC patients
146 citations
TL;DR: NLR may have greater prognostic value in patients with certain demographic and clinical features, after further characterization of populations in which NLR has maximum prognostic potential and the identification of meaningful thresholds for risk stratification.
Abstract: In cancer patients, a high pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is associated with poorer survival outcomes. Significant variation in the magnitude of this association has been observed between studies, but sources of this variation are poorly understood. Here, we explore differences in the prognostic potential of NLR between patient subgroups stratified by demographic and clinical characteristics using a retrospective cohort of 5,363 patients treated at Moffitt Cancer Center (Tampa, FL). We identify patients for whom NLR has maximum prognostic potential via adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) calculated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and area under the curve analysis. NLR demonstrates stronger associations (HRs > 2) with survival among African-American patients, patients receiving radiation therapy, stage IV patients, and melanoma patients when compared with the overall study population (HR = 1.58). Sensitivity and specificity of NLR as a prognostic marker are also higher in these patient subgroups, and increase further with combinations of multiple “high-risk” demographic or clinical characteristics. In summary, NLR may have greater prognostic value in patients with certain demographic and clinical features. Future prospective studies could validate this hypothesis, after further characterization of populations in which NLR has maximum prognostic potential and the identification of meaningful thresholds for risk stratification.
144 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials.
Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure
37,989 citations
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations
TL;DR: It is concluded that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity, and one or both should be presented in publishedMeta-an analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
Abstract: The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
25,460 citations
Book•
23 Sep 2019TL;DR: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
21,235 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, an adjusted rank correlation test is proposed as a technique for identifying publication bias in a meta-analysis, and its operating characteristics are evaluated via simulations, and the test statistic is a direct statistical analogue of the popular funnel-graph.
Abstract: An adjusted rank correlation test is proposed as a technique for identifying publication bias in a meta-analysis, and its operating characteristics are evaluated via simulations. The test statistic is a direct statistical analogue of the popular "funnel-graph." The number of component studies in the meta-analysis, the nature of the selection mechanism, the range of variances of the effect size estimates, and the true underlying effect size are all observed to be influential in determining the power of the test. The test is fairly powerful for large meta-analyses with 75 component studies, but has only moderate power for meta-analyses with 25 component studies. However, in many of the configurations in which there is low power, there is also relatively little bias in the summary effect size estimate. Nonetheless, the test must be interpreted with caution in small meta-analyses. In particular, bias cannot be ruled out if the test is not significant. The proposed technique has potential utility as an exploratory tool for meta-analysts, as a formal procedure to complement the funnel-graph.
13,373 citations