| Literature DB >> 28915685 |
Nan Chen1, Shuai Liu1, Lin Huang1, Wanling Li1, Wenhao Yang1, Tianxin Cong1, Lin Ding1, Meng Qiu1,2.
Abstract
Systemic inflammation responses can be reflected by peripheral blood count and combine index like the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NLR). The NLR has been reported to be a poor prognostic indicator in cancer recently. However, the prognostic effect of the NLR in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) still unclear yet. We conducted this meta-analysis aiming to evaluate the pooled value of NLR in prognosis as well as clinical characteristics in malignant pleural mesothelioma. A total of 11 studies with 1533 patients were included in this meta-analysis, in which 10 studies investigated the prognosis role of NLR using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The elevated NLR was detected to be associated with a poor overall survival (OS)(HR=1.48, 95%CI=1.16-1.89, P < 0.001). The significant prognostic roles of NLR were also indicated in subgroup analyses. NLR level was also associated with histology instead of gender, stage or performance status (PS) score. These findings suggested that the elevated NLR could be a potential prognostic factor for malignant pleural mesothelioma patients and might be associated with histology as an efficient clinical index to stratify patients.Entities:
Keywords: inflammation; malignant pleural mesothelioma; meta-analysis; neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; prognosis
Year: 2017 PMID: 28915685 PMCID: PMC5593657 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15404
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1The flow chart of study selection
NLR: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte; OS: overall survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence intervals.
The baseline characteristics of included studies
| Author | Year | Country | Ethnicity | Study design | Stage | Treatment | Cut-off value | Analysis | NOS score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abakay | 2014 | Turkey | Caucasian | 155 | Retrospective | NA | NA | 3 | NA | 8 |
| Cedres | 2014 | Spain | Caucasian | 52 | Retrospective | III/IV | Chemotherapy/best supportive care | 5 | MV | 6 |
| Cihan | 2014 | Turkey | Caucasian | 50 | Retrospective | I/II/III/IV | Surgery/Chemotherapy/Radiotherapy | 3 | UV | 6 |
| Hooper | 2015 | the UK | Caucasian | 73 | Prospective | I/II/III/IV | Chemotherapy/best supportive care | 4 | MV | 8 |
| Kao | 2013 | Australia | Caucasian | 148 | Retrospective | I/II/III/IV | Surgery/Chemotherapy/Radiotherapy | 3 | MV | 6 |
| Kao | 2011 | Australia | Caucasian | 85 | Retrospective | I/II/III/IV | Surgery/neoadjuvant chemotherapy | 3 | MV | 7 |
| Kao | 2010 | Australia | Caucasian | 173 | Retrospective | I/II/III/IV | First-line/second/third-line chemotherapy | 5 | MV | 8 |
| Meniawy | 2013 | Australia | Caucasian | 274 | Retrospective | I/II/III/IV | Surgery/Chemotherapy/best supportive care | 5 | MV | 7 |
| Pinato | 2012 | the UK | Caucasian | 171 | Retrospective | I/II/III/IV | Chemotherapy/best supportive care | 5 | MV | 8 |
| Tanrikulu | 2015 | Turkey | Caucasian | 202 | Retrospective | I/II/III/IV | Chemotherapy/best supportive care | 3 | MV | 6 |
| Yamagishi | 2015 | Japan | Asian | 150 | Retrospective | I/II/III/IV | Surgery/Chemotherapy/Radiotherapy/best supportive care | 5 | UV | 6 |
a Number of included patients
NA: not available; OS: overall survival; MV: multivariate analysis; UV: univariate analysis; NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.
Figure 2Forest plot of the association between NLR and OS in MPM overallly
The elevated NLR was detected to be significantly associated with a poor OS. HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence intervals.
The pooled data on survival of meta-analysis
| Variables | Caseb | Pooled data | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR(95%CI) | ||||||
| 10 | 1378 | 1.483(1.164-1.889) | 0.001 | 78.3% | <0.001 | |
| Caucasian | 9 | 1228 | 1.437(1.112-1.857) | 0.006 | 78.6% | <0.001 |
| Asian | 1 | 150 | 1.930(1.278-2.915) | 0.002 | NA | NA |
| Retrospective | 9 | 1305 | 1.537(1.138-2.076) | 0.005 | 75.5% | <0.001 |
| Prospective | 1 | 73 | 1.170(1.065-1.286) | 0.001 | NA | NA |
| Multivariate | 8 | 1178 | 1.499(1.151-1.953) | 0.003 | 80.4% | <0.001 |
| Univariate | 2 | 200 | 1.261(0.473-3.362) | 0.644 | 75.4% | 0.044 |
| ≤149 | 5 | 408 | 1.368(0.948-1.973) | 0.094 | 62.2% | 0.032 |
| >149 | 5 | 970 | 1.583(1.067-2.349) | 0.022 | 84.6% | <0.001 |
| 3 | 4 | 485 | 1.358(0.844-2.185) | 0.207 | 71.9% | 0.014 |
| 4 | 1 | 73 | 1.170(1.065-1.286) | 0.001 | NA | NA |
| 5 | 5 | 820 | 1.681(1.104-2.560) | 0.015 | 79.5% | 0.001 |
| ≤6 | 5 | 602 | 1.343(0.866-2.082) | 0.188 | 69.5% | 0.011 |
| >6 | 5 | 776 | 1.579(1.123-2.221) | 0.009 | 85.6% | <0.001 |
a Numbers of studies included in the meta-analysis
b Number of patients of included studies
NA: not available; OS: overall survival; HR: hazard ratio; 95%CI: confidence interval; P: p value of pooled HR; I2: value of Higgins I-squared statistics; Ph: p value of Heterogeneity test.
The pooled data on clinical characteristics of included studies
| Variables | Caseb | Pooled data | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR(95%CI) | ||||||
| Gender | 3 | 488 | ||||
| Male | Reference | |||||
| Female | 0.793(0.516-1.219) | 0.290 | 0.0% | 0.369 | ||
| Histology | 4 | 526 | ||||
| Epithelial | Reference | |||||
| Non-epithelial | 0.588(0.404-0.855) | 0.005 | 37.3% | 0.188 | ||
| Stage | 2 | 205 | ||||
| I/II | Reference | |||||
| III/IV | 0.677(0.342-1.339) | 0.262 | 0.0% | 0.521 | ||
| PS score | 2 | 302 | ||||
| 0 | Reference | |||||
| ≧1 | 0.652(0.379-1.120) | 0.121 | 0.0% | 0.410 | ||
a Numbers of studies included in the meta-analysis
b Number of patients of included studies
PS score: performance status score; OR: odds ratio; 95%CI: confidence interval; P: p value of pooled HR; I2: value of X2 based I-squared statistics; Ph: p value of Heterogeneity test.
Figure 3Sensitivity analysis of included studies to evaluate the stability of our results
We did not observe any variations of the results, which proved the stability of results of our meta-analysis.
Figure 4Begg's funnel plot (a) and Egger's linear regression tests (b) for the assessment of potential publication bias
We did not detected any evidence of publication bias for OS.