Evidence Hub

Prognostic value of inflammatory markers NLR, PLR, and LMR in gastric cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Shufa Tan, Q. Zheng, Wei Zhang, Mi Zhou, Chun-Yan Xia, Wenzhe Feng

Frontiers in Immunology, 2024

1,336 participants · 103 citations

Abstract

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent a groundbreaking approach to cancer therapy. Inflammatory markers such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) have emerged as potential indicators strongly associated with tumor prognosis, albeit their prognostic significance remains contentious. The predictive value of NLR, PLR, LMR in patients with gastric cancer (GC) treated with ICIs has not been fully explored; therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to examine the potential of inflammatory markers NLR, PLR, and LMR as survival predictors in this population. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, with the search cut-off date set as March 2024. Hazard ratios (HR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess the prognostic significance of NLR, PLR, and LMR for both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Fifteen cohort studies involving 1336 gastric cancer patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that high levels of NLR were associated with poorer OS and PFS in GC patients receiving ICIs, with combined HRs of OS [HR=2.01, 95%CI (1.72,2.34), P<0.01], and PFS PFS[HR=1.59, 95%CI (1.37,1.86), P<0.01], respectively; high levels of PLR were associated with poorer OS and PFS, and the combined HR was OS [HR=1.57,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,336 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free