The prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein in metastatic colorectal cancer using regorafenib: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".