| Literature DB >> 31000754 |
Xuan Zhu1, Shui-Qing Wu1, Ran Xu1, Yin-Huai Wang2, Zhao-Hui Zhong1, Lei Zhang1, Xiao-Kun Zhao3.
Abstract
In recent years, several studies have reported monocyte lymphocyte ratio (MLR) to predict prognosis in various tumors. Our study was performed to evaluate the association between preoperative MLR between prognostic variables in urothelial carcinoma patients. Systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of science. The correlation between preoperative MLR and overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), disease free survival (DFS)/relapse free survival (RFS), progression free survival(PFS) was evaluated in urothelial carcinoma patients. Meanwhile, the association between MLR and clinicopathological characteristics was assessed. Finally, 12 comparative studies comprising a total of 6209 patients were included for pooled analysis. The hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs)and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were further analyzed as effect measures. The pooled results demonstrated that elevated preoperative MLR indicated unfavorable OS (HR = 1.29, 95%CI = 1.18-1.39, I2 = 33.6%), DFS/RFS (HR = 1.42, 95%CI = 1.30-1.55, I2 = 0.0%) and CSS (HR = 1.41, 95%CI = 1.29-1.52, I2 = 0.0%). Moreover, the pooled results also suggested that elevated preoperative MLR was correlated with high tumor stage (OR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.07-1.37, I2 = 0.0%) in urothelial carcinoma patients. No significant association was found between preoperative MLR and PFS in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UUTUC) patients. Collectively, elevated preoperative MLR predicted poor prognosis in urothelial carcinoma and have the potential to be a feasible and cost-effective prognostic predictor for management of urothelial carcinoma.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31000754 PMCID: PMC6472363 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42781-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flow diagram.
Charateristics of the included studies.
| First author(year) | Design | geographical region | Cases number | diagnosis | therapy | Cut-off value | Outcome | Analysis methods | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temraz S, | Retrospective | Asian | 68 | UCB | RC | 0.36a,0.35b | DFS,OS | K | 6 |
| Hutterer GC, | Retrospective | Australasian | 182 | UUTUC | RNU | 0.50 | OS | M | 8 |
| Zhang GB, | Retrospective | Asian | 124 | UCB | RC | 0.25 | OS | U | 7 |
| Yoshida T, | Retrospective | Asian | 181 | UCB | RC | 0.28 | OS | M | 8 |
| Bhindi B, | Retrospective | North American | 418 | UCB | RC | per 1-log unitc | RFS,CSS,OS | U | 7 |
| Song X, | Retrospective | Asian | 140 | UUTUC | RNU | 0.28 | DFS,PFS | M | 7 |
| D’Andrea D, | Retrospective | European | 4198 | UCB | RC | 0.29 | RFS,CSS,OS | M | 8 |
| Altan M, | Retrospective | Asian | 113 | UUTUC | RNU | 0.34 | DFS,PFS | M | 6 |
| Miyake M, | Retrospective | Asian | 117 | UCB | RC | 0.3 | OS,DSS | U | 7 |
| Rajwa P, | Retrospective | European | 144 | UCB | RC | 0.41 | OS,CSS | M | 8 |
| Jan HC, | Retrospective | Asian | 424 | UUTUC | RNU | 0.4 | OS,CSS,PFS | M | 8 |
| Zhang XK, | Retrospective | Asian | 100 | UUTUC | RNU | 0.33 | OS | M | 8 |
UUTUC: upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma; UCB: urothelial carcinoma of bladder; OS: overall survival; DFS: disease free survival; RFS: recurrence free survival; CSS: cancer specific survival; PFS: progression free survival; RNU: radical nephroureterectomy; RC: radical cystectomy; M: multivariate analysis; U:univariate analysis; K: Kaplan-meier curve; a: cut-off value for OS; b: cut-off value for DFS; c: Log-transformed.
Figure 2Forest plot evaluating the association between MLR and OS.
Figure 3Forest plot evaluating the association between MLR and DFS/RFS.
Figure 4Forest plot evaluating the correlation between MLR and CSS.
Figure 5Forest plot evaluating the correlation between MLR and PFS.
The association between MLR and clinicopathological characteristics. MLR: high vs. low; Cis: carcinoma in situ; LVI: lymphovascular invasion.
| Patient charateristics | Number of studies | Number of patients | Effect models | OR (95%CI) | Heterogeneity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi2 | I2 | P | |||||
| Gender (male vs. female) | 6 | 5168 | fixed | 0.87 (0.75–0.99) | 2.59 | 0 | 0.763 |
| Diabetes (yes vs. no) | 2 | 264 | fixed | 0.66 (0.16–1.17) | 0.29 | 0 | 0.587 |
| Hypertension (yes vs. no) | 2 | 264 | fixed | 0.61 (0.26–0.95) | 0.16 | 0 | 0.693 |
| Concomitant Cis (yes vs. no) | 2 | 4322 | fixed | 0.88 (0.77–0.98) | 0.01 | 0 | 0.913 |
| Tumor grade (high vs. low) | 7 | 5256 | fixed | 1.06 (0.82–1.30) | 1.93 | 0 | 0.926 |
| Tumor necrosis (yes vs. no) | 4 | 846 | fixed | 1.21 (0.70–1.72) | 1.20 | 0 | 0.753 |
| LVI (yes vs. no) | 4 | 4862 | Random | 1.00 (0.47–1.53) | 9.31 | 67.8 | 0.025 |
| Tumor stage (≥T2 vs. <T2) | 6 | 5096 | fixed | 1.22 (1.07–1.37) | 3.26 | 0 | 0.661 |
| Multifocality | 2 | 524 | fixed | 1.33(0.78–1.87) | 0.04 | 0 | 0.838 |
Figure 6Sensitivity analysis. (A) MLR with OS; (B) MLR with DFS/RFS; (C) MLR with CSS; (D) MLR with PFS. Circles: included studies; Dash line: 95% confidence interval.