MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293214526 · doi:10.21037/jgo-22-683

The prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein in metastatic colorectal cancer using regorafenib: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4293214526 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nan Zhao, Huilin Xu, Dingjie Zhou, Ximing Xu, Wei Ge, Dedong Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gastrointestinal Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegorafenibColorectal cancerOncologyInternal medicineMeta-analysisNeutrophil to lymphocyte ratioCancerLymphocyteCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The application of regorafenib has changed the landscape of subsequent-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), as two of the most common inflammatory factors, are suggested to be potential prognostic factors for mCRC patients treated with regorafenib, but the results are conflicting. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic role of NLR and CRP in mCRC patients treated with regorafenib. Methods: We searched online databases such as Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane library up to April 2022, without language limitation, to identify clinical studies evaluating the prognostic role of NLR or CRP in regorafenib treated mCRC patients. The main endpoints were hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The associations between NLR, CRP, and the above endpoints were extracted. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct the combined analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied for assessing the quality of included studies. Heterogeneity was detected by chi-square-based Q test and I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot asymmetry and Egger’s test. Results: Eight studies involving 1,287 cases were included, with 5 reporting survival outcomes based on NLR level and 4 reporting survival according to CRP level. The results of meta-analysis showed that the calculated HR of OS for subsequent-line regorafenib in mCRC patients with high versus low NLR was 2.52 [I2=52%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.75–3.64; P<0.00001]. The combined HR of PFS with high versus low baseline NLR was 2.11 (I2=12%, 95% CI: 1.80–2.48; P<0.00001). For patients with a high level of CRP, the OS was significantly shorter when compared with patients with a low level of CRP (I2=0%, HR =1.88; 95% CI: 1.55–2.29; P<0.00001). Conclusions: High level of NLR could be associated with OS in mCRC patients treated with regorafenib. It is suggested that the impact of regorafenib on OS may vary according to the baseline NLR.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gastrointestinal OncologySame topicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease PrognosisFrench-language works237,207