| Literature DB >> 28260931 |
Yu Huang1, Yue Sun1, Ping Peng1, Sixian Zhu1, Wei Sun1, Peng Zhang1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence from an increasing number of studies has demonstrated that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a prognostic factor for various cancers. However, it is unclear whether NLR predicts prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the prognostic and clinicopathologic significance of NLR in patients with ESCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Selected studies were identified by searches in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases and filtered using our prepared criteria. The hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio were chosen as effect measures to assess the prognostic role of NLR and its clinicopathologic significance in ESCC. In total, nine studies containing 2,513 patients were enrolled.Entities:
Keywords: ESCC; NLR; inflammation; meta-analysis; prognosis
Year: 2017 PMID: 28260931 PMCID: PMC5328304 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S126637
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
Figure 1The flow diagram of the included studies.
Abbreviation: NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio.
Main characteristics of all the studies included in the meta-analysis
| Study | Year | Study design | Country | Study period | No (male/female) | Mean age ± SD (years) | Survival type | CV | Treatment | Stage | HR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feng et al | 2014 | R | People’s Republic of China | 2005–2008 | 483 (411/72) | 59.1±8.0 (34–80) | OS | 3.5 | Surgery | NR | M/U |
| Hirahara et al | 2015 | R | Japan | 2006–2014 | 141 (127/14) | NR (≥70, n=46; <70, n=95) | OS | 2.5 | Surgery | I–III | U |
| Han et al | 2015 | R | People’s Republic of China | 2007–2008 | 218 (177/41) | 60.5 (32–84) | OS, DFS | 2.6 | Mix | I–III | M/U |
| Shao et al | 2015 | R | People’s Republic of China | 2002–2012 | 633 (484/149) | 60 (37–83) | OS | 1.7 | Surgery | I–III | M/U |
| He et al | 2016 | NR | People’s Republic of China | 2000–2010 | 317 (268/49) | 60 (37–77) | OS, DFS | 3.3 | Mix | I–IV | M |
| Ji et al | 2016 | R | People’s Republic of China | 2009–2012 | 41 (38/3) | 56.6±7.2 | OS, PFS | 5 | Mix | I–III | M/U |
| Kosumi et al | 2016 | R | Japan | 2005–2011 | 283 (248/35) | NR (≥65, n=165; <65, n=118) | OS | 1.94 | Mix | I–IV | M/U |
| Toyokawa et al | 2016 | R | Japan | 2000–2014 | 185 (152/33) | 64 (59–70) | OS | 3.612 | Mix | I–IV | M |
| Zhang et al | 2016 | R | People’s Republic of China | 2006–2011 | 212 (166/46) | 60 (37–81) | OS, PFS | 3 | Chemoradiotherapy | NR | M |
Notes: R: retrospective study; M: HR from multivariate analysis; U: HR from univariate analysis; Mix: mixed treatment with at least two anticancer methods including chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy.
No patients had metastasis.
A few patients had metastasis.
Abbreviations: CV, cutoff value; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; NR, not reported; DFS, disease-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 2Meta-analysis of the association between NLR and OS in ESCC. Results are presented as individual and pooled HR, and 95% CI.
Abbreviations: NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; OS, overall survival; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ES, effect size.
Summary of the meta-analysis results
| Factor | No of studies | No of patients | Effects model | HR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 9 | 2,513 | Fixed | 1.314 (1.164–1.484) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.593 |
| Country | |||||||
| People’s Republic of China | 6 | 609 | Fixed | 1.291 (1.132–1.472) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.533 |
| Japan | 3 | 1,904 | Fixed | 1.463 (1.063–2.015) | 0.02 | 0 | 0.394 |
| Treatment | |||||||
| Surgery | 3 | 1,257 | Fixed | 1.283 (1.077–1.528) | 0.005 | 0 | 0.902 |
| Mixed | 5 | 1,044 | Fixed | 1.404 (1.152–1.71) | 0.001 | 26.4 | 0.245 |
| Cutoff value | |||||||
| ≤2.5 | 3 | 1,057 | Fixed | 1.345 (1.098–1.647) | 0.004 | 12.2 | 0.32 |
| >2.5 | 6 | 1,456 | Fixed | 1.297 (1.114–1.51) | 0.001 | 0 | 0.531 |
| Sample size | |||||||
| <300 | 6 | 1,080 | Fixed | 1.316 (1.083–1.598) | 0.006 | 20.4 | 0.28 |
| >300 | 3 | 1,433 | Fixed | 1.313 (1.124–1.534) | 0.001 | 0 | 0.905 |
| Survival analysis | |||||||
| Univariate | 6 | 1,799 | Fixed | 1.335 (1.149–1.55) | <0.001 | 16 | 0.311 |
| Multivariate | 8 | 2,372 | Fixed | 1.321 (1.167–1.495) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.502 |
| Overall | 2 | 525 | Fixed | 1.268 (1.01–1.592) | 0.041 | 0 | 0.845 |
| Overall | 2 | 253 | Fixed | 1.221 (0.9–1.655) | 0.2 | 0 | 0.484 |
Note: Ph: P-value of Q test for heterogeneity.
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival; No, number.
Meta-analysis of the association between NLR and clinicopathologic features of ESCC
| Variable | No of studies | No of patients | OR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity
| Publication bias Begg’s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TNM stage (III–IV vs I–II) | 3 | 576 | 1.578 (1.11–2.243) | 0.011 | 0 | 0.623 | 1 |
| Tumor differentiation (poor vs moderate/high) | 4 | 1,059 | 1.51 (1.106–2.061) | 0.01 | 35.1 | 0.202 | 0.734 |
| Depth of invasion (T3–T4 vs T1–T2) | 4 | 954 | 2.742 (1.997–3.765) | <0.001 | 14.9 | 0.318 | 0.734 |
| Tumor size (>3 cm vs <3 cm) | 3 | 1,018 | 2.825 (1.675–4.764) | <0.001 | 62.9 | 0.067 | 1 |
| Lymph node metastasis (yes vs no) | 5 | 1,271 | 1.424 (0.862–2.355) | 0.168 | 68.9 | 0.012 | 0.806 |
| Vascular invasion (yes vs no) | 2 | 524 | 1.383 (0.859–2.228) | 0.182 | 0 | 0.336 | 1 |
Note: Ph: P-value of Q test for heterogeneity.
Abbreviations: NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNM, tumor node metastasis; No, number.
Figure 3(A) Begg’s funnel plot for the assessment of potential publication bias. (B) Sensitivity analysis of the relationship between NLR and OS.
Abbreviations: NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; OS, overall survival; SE, standard error; lnhr, natural logarithm of hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.