Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423649›Full record

SynthesisCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2018

Pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is associated with outcome of advanced-stage cancer patients treated with immunotherapy: a meta-analysis.

Tao Jiang, Meng Qiao, Chao Zhao, Xuefei Li, Guanghui Gao, Chunxia Su, Shengxiang Ren, Caicun Zhou

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Targeting neutrophils for cancer therapy.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tao JiangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Thoracic Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 507, Zheng Min Road, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Meng QiaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Thoracic Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 507, Zheng Min Road, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Chao ZhaoDepartment of Lung Cancer and Immunology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Xuefei LiDepartment of Lung Cancer and Immunology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Guanghui GaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Thoracic Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 507, Zheng Min Road, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Chunxia SuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Thoracic Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 507, Zheng Min Road, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Shengxiang RenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Thoracic Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 507, Zheng Min Road, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Caicun ZhouDepartment of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Thoracic Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 507, Zheng Min Road, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China. caicunzhou_dr@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1072-9941

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81672286
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo investigate the association between pretreatment blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and clinical outcomes for advanced-stage cancer patients treated with immunotherapy.

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search to assess the relationship between pretreatment blood NLR and overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced-stage cancer patients treated with immunotherapy. Published data including hazard ratios (HRs) and related 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted. Pooled estimates of treatment outcomes were calculated using RevMan 5.3.5.

resultsTwenty-seven studies with 4647 patients were included in the current study. The pooled results suggested that high pretreatment blood NLR was correlated with significant shorter OS (HR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.66-2.36, P < 0.001) and PFS (HR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.48-2.15, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis stratified by study targets revealed that anti-VEGF/VEGFR therapy (HR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.61-2.60, P < 0.001) and immune checkpoints blockade (HR = 2.16, 95% CI 1.86-2.51, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with inferior OS while other targets (HR = 1.63, 95% CI 0.89-2.99, P = 0.120) were not associated with OS. There was no correlation between distinct NLR cutoff values and OS ([Formula: see text] = 0.218, P = 0.329) or PFS benefit ([Formula: see text] = - 0.386, P = 0.140). Of note, HRs of PFS showed significant correlation with HRs of OS ([Formula: see text] = 0.656, P = 0.015).

conclusionElevated pretreatment blood NLR was a promising prognostic and predictive biomarker for advanced-stage cancer patients treated with immunotherapy.

Indexed as

HumansImmunotherapyLymphocytesNeoplasmsNeutrophilsPrognosisSurvival RateBiomarkerCancerImmune microenvironmentImmunotherapyNeutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

Identifiers

PMID29423649
PMCPMC11028313

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.