| Literature DB >> 30539019 |
Gang Hu1, Qin Liu1, Jian-Ying Ma1, Cheng-Yuan Liu2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pretreatment platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) has been considered a prognostic factor in various cancers. However, the application of PLR in the assessment of patients with cholangiocarcinoma remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of pretreatment PLR in cholangiocarcinoma.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30539019 PMCID: PMC6261069 DOI: 10.1155/2018/7375169
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1The flow chart of study selection procedure in the meta-analysis.
Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
| Author | Year | Area | Follow-up (months) | Treatment | No. of patients | Stage | Cut-off value | Survival analysis | Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buettner | 2018 | Multicenter | 29 (4.8-53.3) | Surgery | 991 | NA | 190 | OS | UV |
| Chen | 2015 | China | 57.8±11.2 | Surgery | 322 | Mixed | 123 | OS/RFS | MV |
| Cho | 2018 | Korea | 25 (19.6-30.4)) | Chemotherapy | 257 | Metastatic | 123.8 | OS/PFS | UV |
| Hu | 2018 | China | NA | Surgery | 173 | Mixed | 150 | OS | UV |
| Kitano | 2017 | Japan | NA | Mixed | 120 | Mixed | 185 | OS/RFS | MV |
| Ramen | 2018 | China | NA | Surgery | 90 | NA | 148 | OS/RFS | MV |
| Saito | 2015 | Japan | 70 (42-82) | Surgery | 121 | Mixed | 150 | OS | MV |
| Yoh | 2017 | Japan | 65 (26-84) | Surgery | 134 | Mixed | 120 | OS | MV |
| Zhang | 2016 | China | NA | NA | 187 | Mixed | 138 | OS | MV |
OS: overall survival; PFS: progress-free survival; RFS: recurrence-free survival; UV: univariate; MV: multivariate; NA: not available.
Assessment of study quality.
| Author | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buettner | ★★★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | 9 |
| Chen | ★★★★ | ★★ | ★★ | 8 |
| Cho | ★★★★ | ★★ | ★★ | 8 |
| Hu | ★★★ | ★ | ★★ | 6 |
| Kitano | ★★★★ | ★ | ★ | 6 |
| Ramen | ★★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | 8 |
| Saito | ★★★★ | ★ | ★ | 6 |
| Yoh | ★★★★ | ★ | ★★ | 7 |
| Zhang | ★★★★ | ★ | ★ | 6 |
Figure 2Forest plots for the association between PLR and OS.
Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for OS according to subgroup analyses.
| Subgroup | No. of studies | No. of patients | HR (95% CI) | P value | Heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2(%) | Ph | |||||
| Overall | 8 | 1404 | 1.38 (1.19-1.62) | <0.001 | 16.5 | 0.30 |
| Treatment | ||||||
| Surgery | 5 | 840 | 1.43 (1.12-1.83) | 0.005 | 30.8 | 0.22 |
| Chemoradiotherapy | 1 | 257 | 1.19 (0.91-1.55) | 0.200 | — | — |
| Mixed | 1 | 120 | 1.89 (1.11-3.14) | 0.020 | — | — |
| Stage | ||||||
| Mixed | 6 | 866 | 1.40 (1.18-1.67) | <0.001 | 8.2 | 0.36 |
| Metastatic | 1 | 257 | 1.19 (0.91-1.55) | 0.200 | — | — |
| Cut-off | ||||||
| ≥150 | 3 | 485 | 1.59 (1.03-2.46) | 0.036 | 56.2 | 0.102 |
| <150 | 5 | 919 | 1.33 (1.14-1.56) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.505 |
| Analysis method | ||||||
| Univariate | 2 | 430 | 1.16 (0.93-1.45) | 0.174 | 0 | 0.778 |
| Multivariate | 6 | 974 | 1.52 (1.27-1.81) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.426 |
Figure 3Forest plots for the association between PLR and PFS/RFS.
Meta-analysis of the association between PLR and clinicopathological features of CCA.
| Characteristics | No. of studies | No. of patients | OR (95% CI) | p | Heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 (%) | Ph | |||||
| Age (≥ median vs. < median) | 3 | 669 | 0.82 (0.38-1.77) | 0.61 | 70 | 0.03 |
| Gender (male vs. female) | 4 | 789 | 0.59 (0.44-0.80) | < 0.001 | 0 | 0.94 |
| CA199 (>37 ng/mL vs. <37 ng/mL) | 3 | 669 | 1.25 (0.92-1.70) | 0.16 | 0 | 0.56 |
| Differentiation (low vs. moderate/high) | 2 | 442 | 1.05 (0.64-1.73) | 0.85 | 0 | 0.90 |
| Lymph node metastasis (pos vs. neg) | 4 | 1194 | 1.16 (0.82-1.65) | 0.39 | 0 | 0.63 |
| Vascular invasion (pos vs. neg) | 2 | 978 | 1.27 (0.86-1.89) | 0.23 | 0 | 0.56 |
| Postoperative complication (present vs. absent) | 2 | 776 | 1.44 (0.97-2.14) | 0.07 | 0 | 0.39 |
| Postoperative mortality (present vs. absent) | 2 | 776 | 1.54 (0.56-4.26) | 0.41 | 0 | 0.67 |
| Margin status (R1 vs. R0) | 2 | 776 | 2.09 (1.24-3.54) | 0.006 | 0 | 0.69 |
R0: microscopically negative resection margins; R1: microscopically positive resection margins.
Figure 4Sensitivity analysis of PLR on OS in CCA patients.