SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
The prognostic value of the lung immune prognostic index in patients with urological cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI), derived from the derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and lactate dehydrogenase, integrates systemic inflammation and tumour burden. Its prognostic utility in urological malignancies has not been comprehensively quantified. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA and a prospectively registered protocol. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through October 2025. Eligible cohort studies or trials evaluated associations between LIPI categories (good/intermediate/poor) and survival outcomes in renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and prostate cancer. Random-effects models were fitted using REML with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. When hazard ratios (HRs) were not directly reported, we reconstructed pseudo-individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves to estimate HRs. Results: Thirteen studies (19 independent cohorts; 5,304 patients) were included. Compared with good LIPI, intermediate LIPI was associated with worse overall survival (OS) (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.52-1.98) and shorter progression-free survival (PFS; including disease-free survival after surgery where applicable) (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.13-1.71). Poor LIPI showed a stronger association with inferior OS (HR 3.73, 95% CI 2.95-4.71) and PFS (HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.96-3.70). Prognostic gradients were generally consistent across tumour types and treatment settings, including immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated cohorts. Conclusions: LIPI is a readily available biomarker that provides robust risk stratification across major urological cancers and may support treatment planning and trial stratification. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251235082, identifier CRD420251235082.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.