| Literature DB >> 31190994 |
Yi-Yang Bai1, Lan Du2, Li Jing1, Tao Tian1, Xuan Liang1, Min Jiao1, Ke-Jun Nan1, Hui Guo1, Zhi-Ping Ruan1.
Abstract
Background: The prognostic and clinicopathological role of pretreatment thrombocytosis in cancer has been widely studied, but conclusions in endometrial cancer (EnCa) remain controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the pathologic and prognostic impacts of pretreatment thrombocytosis in patients with EnCa.Entities:
Keywords: endometrial cancer; meta-analysis; prognosis; thrombocytosis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31190994 PMCID: PMC6511544 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S186535
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale
| Selection |
|---|
| (1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort |
| (a) Truly representative of the average “endometrial cancer patient” in the community (1 star) |
| (b) Somewhat representative of the average ‘endometrial cancer patient in the community (1 star) |
| (c) Selected group of users (eg, nurses, volunteers) |
| (d) No description of the derivation of the cohort |
| (2) Selection of the non-exposed cohort |
| (a) Drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort (1 star) |
| (b) Drawn from a different source |
| (c) No description of the derivation of the non-exposed cohort |
| (3) Ascertainment of exposure |
| (a) Secure record (eg, surgical records) (1 star) |
| (b) Structured interview (1 star) |
| (c) Written self-report |
| (d) No description |
| (4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study |
| (a) Yes (1 star) |
| (b) No |
| (1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis |
| (a) Study controls for confounder factor (factors that may affect hematologic parameters) (1 star) |
| (b) Study controls for any additional factor (1 star) (age, gender, stage, etc.) |
| (1) Assessment of outcome (death or recurrence or progression) |
| (a) Independent blind assessment (1 star) |
| (b) Record linkage (1 star) |
| (c) Self-report |
| (d) No description |
| (2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? |
| (a) Yes (1 star) |
| (b) No |
| (3) Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts |
| (a) Complete follow-up – all subjects accounted for (1 star) |
| (b) Subjects lost to follow-up unlikely to introduce bias – small number lost “(25%)” or description provided of those lost (1 star) |
| (c) Follow-up rate less than “75%” and no description of those lost |
| (d) No statement |
Notes: Reproduced with permission from Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in metaanalyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.1
Assessment of Newcastle-Ottawa Scale methodological quality of cohort studies
| Studya | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Scoreb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of nonexposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Outcome not present at start | Assessment of outcome | Follow-up length | Follow up adequacy | |||
| Abu-Zaid et al | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆ | 7 |
| Andersen et al | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | - | - | 6 |
| Gücer et al | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆⋆ | - | ⋆ | ⋆ | 7 |
| Gorelick et al | ⋆ | ⋆ | - | - | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆ | 6 |
| Heng and Benjapibal | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | 8 |
| Kizer et al | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | 8 |
| Lerner et al | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆ | 8 | |
| Moeini et al | ⋆ | ⋆ | - | - | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | 7 |
| Njølstad et al | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | 9 |
| Takahashi et al | ⋆ | ⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆⋆ | ⋆ | - | ⋆ | 7 |
Notes: aNewcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale: a study can have one star (*) for meeting each criterion, except that comparability (design or analysis) can have a maximum of two stars. For comparability in this study: one star if controlled for age; two stars if also controlled for other important variables such as age, histology, stage, etc. bQuality evidence score, study met criteria for selection (four items), comparability (one star; upgraded a level for two stars), and outcome assessment.
Figure 1Flow diagram of the search strategy.
Baseline characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis
| Study (year) | Study period | Country | Study design | Participants | Mean/median age (years) | Cutoff value | Outcomes | Incidence | NOS score | Variable type | Median follow-up (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abu-Zaid et al | 2010–2013 | Saudi Arabia | R | 162 | 59 | >400×109/L | OS, DFS | 8.6% | 7 | Multi | NR |
| 2000–2010 | Denmark | R | 218 | NR | 400–550×109/L | OS, DSS | 9.2% | 6 | Multi | NR | |
| 2000–2010 | Denmark | R | 218 | NR | >550×109/L | OS, DSS | 2.3% | 6 | Multi | NR | |
| Gücer et al | 1987–1991 | Austria | R | 135 | 64 | >400×109/L | OS | 14% | 7 | Multi | 53 (1–124) |
| Gorelick et al | 1998–2006 | USA | R | 77 | 65.5 | >400×109/L | OS, DFS | 18.2% | 6 | Multi | NR |
| Heng and Benjapibal | 2005–2008 | Thailand | R | 238 | 57.88 | >400×109/L | OS, DFS | 18.06% | 8 | Multi | 59.6 (1–98) |
| Kizer et al | 1999–2009 | USA | R | 318 | NR | >400×109/L | DFS, DSS | 16.7 | 8 | Multi | 25.6 normal group |
| Lerner et al | 1996–2004 | USA | R | 68 | NR | >400×109/L | OS, DFS | 12% | 8 | Multi | NR |
| Moeini et al | 2000–2013 | USA | R | 714 | 53.1 | >400×109/L | DFS, OS | 11.1% | 7 | Multi | 28.8 |
| Njølstad et al | 2001–2011 | Norway | P | 557 | 66.2 | >390×109/L | DSS | 12.1% | 9 | Multi | 55 (0–97) |
| Takahashi et al | 2000–2010 | Japan | R | 508 | 58 | >400×109/L | OS | 6.9% | 7 | Multi | NR |
Note: *Data were from the same study.
Abbreviations: NR, not report; R, retrospective; P, prospective; multi, multivariate analysis; OS, overall survival; DSS, cancer/disease-specific survival; DFS, disease-free survival; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Figure 2Association of pretreatment thrombocytosis with clinicopathological parameters. (A) FIGO stage; (B) tumor differentiation; and (C) lymph-vascular space invasion.
Figure 3Association of pretreatment thrombocytosis with clinicopathological factors. (A) histologic subtype; (B) cervical involvement; (C) myometrial invasion; and (D)lymph node metastasis.
Figure 4The association between thrombocytosis and survival outcomes (all multivariate analysis). (A) overall survival; (B) disease-free survival; and (C) cancer/disease-specific survival.
Subgroup analyses for OS and DFS
| Subgroups | N | Pooled OS | N | Pooled DFS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |||||||
| Geographic region | ||||||||||
| Asian | 3 | 1.77 | 0.46–6.79 | 0.41 | 91% | 2 | 2.21 | 1.17–4.21 | 0.02 | 0% |
| Non-Asian | 3 | 1.52 | 0.83–2.79 | 0.17 | 58% | 2 | 1.38 | 0.54–3.53 | 0.50 | 82% |
| NOS score | ||||||||||
| ≤7 | 4 | 1.90 | 0.94–3.81 | 0.07 | 77% | 2 | 1.35 | 0.50–3.63 | 0.56 | 73% |
| >7 | 2 | 1.31 | 0.29–5.91 | 0.73 | 85% | 2 | 2.18 | 1.34–3.56 | 0.002 | 0% |
| Sample size | ||||||||||
| Small (≤200) | 3 | 1.88 | 1.26–2.80 | 0.002 | 0% | 1 | 2.38 | 0.99–5.75 | 0.05 | NA |
| Large (>200) | 3 | 1.39 | 0.44–4.45 | 0.57 | 91% | 3 | 1.52 | 0.77–3.00 | 0.22 | 68% |
Abbreviations: DFS, disease-free survival; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; OS, overall survival.
Sensitivity analysis for OS and DFS
| Outcomes | Study omitted | Pooled results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS | HR | 95% CI | ||
| Abu-Zaid et al | 1.64 | 0.80–3.38 | 0.18 | |
| Gorelick et al | 1.66 | 0.73–3.79 | 0.23 | |
| Heng and Benjapibal | 2.04 | 1.11–3.73 | 0.02 | |
| Lerner et al | 1.50 | 0.75–3.00 | 0.25 | |
| Moeini et al | 1.90 | 0.89–4.04 | 0.10 | |
| Takahashi et al | 1.27 | 0.75–2.16 | 0.37 | |
| DFS | Abu-Zaid et al | 1.52 | 0.77–3.00 | 0.22 |
| Heng and Benjapibal | 1.60 | 0.79–3.22 | 0.19 | |
| Kizer et al | 1.49 | 0.74–3.00 | 0.27 | |
| Moeini et al | 2.23 | 1.45–3.42 | 0.000 | |
Abbreviations: DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival.