RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Heterogeneity in prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio: a meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 19011387
DO 10.1101/19011387
A1 Rachel Howard
A1 Peter A. Kanetsky
A1 Kathleen M. Egan
YR 2019
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/05/19011387.abstract
AB High pre-treatment values of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are strongly associated with poorer survival outcomes in cancer patients. Here, we assess heterogeneity in the magnitude of this association and the prognostic potential of the NLR between patient subgroups. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of 228 published studies (N=75,555 patients) relating NLR with overall survival across 18 cancer types. Cochran’s Q test and Higgins I2 statistic were used to assess study heterogeneity. Pooled hazard ratios were compared between groups of studies classified by cancer type, geographic region, therapy type, and cut-off for high NLR to identify study-level characteristics associated with increased prognostic potential of the NLR. Pooled hazard ratios are highest in studies of melanoma and breast cancer and lowest in studies of brain cancer and lung cancer. Radiation as primary treatment also demonstrates a large pooled effect size as compared to other therapies. The NLR has greater prognostic value in certain cancer types and therapeutic regimens. Efforts are needed to comprehensively examine populations in which NLR has maximum prognostic power. Clinically meaningful thresholds for risk stratification should be identified within these patient subgroups to permit prospective validation of the prognostic potential of the NLR.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementDr. Rachel Howard was supported by a Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service award from the National Institutes of Health (T32 CA147832) during the preparation of this manuscript. The National Institutes of Health had no direct role in the design of this study, nor the execution, analyses interpretation of the data or decision to submit results. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe manuscript is a meta-analysis of published work, no new data were collected or analyzed in this study.