-
Medicine Jun 2016Many studies have been reported that platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) may be associated with the prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC), but the results are inconsistent.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Many studies have been reported that platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) may be associated with the prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC), but the results are inconsistent. Current opinion on the prognostic role of the PLR in CRC is inconsistent and inconclusive. Therefore, we conduct a meta-analysis that combines these studies and to identify the prognostic value of PLR in patients with CRC. Data were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases that came from inception through January 2016. We extracted data from the characteristics of each study and analyzed the relationship between PLR and overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), or other prognosis in patients with CRC by using the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Of the 256 identified studies, 15 studies were included and a total of 3991 patients were included. In a meta-analysis, patients with an elevated PLR had a significantly lower OS (pooled HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.24-1.89; P ≤ 0.001), DFS (pooled HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.07-2.62; P = 0.023). Even after sensitivity analyses and trim and fill method, high PLR remains significantly predictive poorer OS, but not DFS. In addition, our meta-analysis indicated that increased PLR is also significantly associated with the poor tumor differentiation [odds ratio (OR) 2.12; 95% CI, 1.45-3.08, P < 0.001)], the propensity toward depth of infiltration (OR 1.69; 95% CI, 1.20-2.39, P = 0.003), and recurrence in patients with CRC (HR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.31-5.60, P = 0.005). This meta-analysis suggested that a high peripheral blood PLR can be used as a predictor of OS connected with clinicopathological parameters in patients with CRC, not DFS. These ratios may thus contribute to inform more personalized treatment decisions and predict treatment outcomes.
Topics: Blood Platelets; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Lymphocyte Count; Lymphocytes; Neoplasm Staging; Platelet Count; Prognosis
PubMed: 27310960
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003837 -
Oncotarget Apr 2017Several studies were conducted to explore the prognostic significance of platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), however, contradictory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Several studies were conducted to explore the prognostic significance of platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), however, contradictory results across most reports were documented. To this end, we present a systematic review that aims to summarize the prognostic significance of PLR in patients with HCC.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies involving a total of 2,315 patients were identified. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) of each included study was greater than or equal to 5. The results indicated that high PLR was significantly associated with a worse OS when compared to the low PLR (HR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.23-2.08, p = 0.0005; I2 = 88%, p < 0.00001). Similar results were detected in the subgroup analysis of the analysis model, cut-off value, ethnicity, sample size and therapy. However, no obvious correlation between the PLR and DFS/RFS in patients with HCC was observed (HR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.87-1.67, p = 0.26; I2 = 61%, p = 0.07).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A complete literature search in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase database was performed. Retrospective and prospective studies focusing on the role of PLR on the prognosis in HCC were all deemed as "suitable" for our scope. The endpoints determined were: the overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the progress free survival (PFS).
CONCLUSIONS
The study revealed that high PLR is an unfavorable predictor of OS in patients with HCC, and high PLR is a promising prognostic biomarker for HCC, especially for patients in Asia.
Topics: Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Lymphocyte Count; Platelet Count; Prognosis; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 28206965
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15281 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Jan 2022To examine the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and the risk for preeclampsia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and the risk for preeclampsia.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, POPLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, and the World Health Organization COVID-19, Chinese, and preprint databases (all from December 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021). Google Scholar, bibliographies, and conference proceedings were also searched.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Observational studies that assessed the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and preeclampsia and that reported unadjusted and/or adjusted risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals or data to calculate them.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
The primary outcome was preeclampsia. Secondary outcomes included preeclampsia with severe features, preeclampsia without severe features, eclampsia, and hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count (HELLP) syndrome. Two reviewers independently reviewed studies for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias, and extracted data. Pooled unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and 95% prediction interval were calculated. Heterogeneity was quantified using the І statistic, for which І≥30% indicated substantial heterogeneity. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the overall findings.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies comprising 790,954 pregnant women, among which 15,524 were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of unadjusted odds ratios showed that the odds of developing preeclampsia were significantly higher among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without SARS-CoV-2 infection (7.0% vs 4.8%; pooled odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.82; P<.00001; І=17%; 26 studies; 95% prediction interval of the odds ratio, 1.28-2.05). The meta-analysis of adjusted odds ratios also showed that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy was associated with a significant increase in the odds of preeclampsia (pooled odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.80; P<.0001; І=0%; 11 studies). There was a statistically significant increase in the odds of preeclampsia with severe features (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.63; І=58%; 7 studies), eclampsia (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.84; І=0%, 3 studies), and HELLP syndrome (odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-2.97; 1 study) among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection when compared to those without the infection. Overall, the direction and magnitude of the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy on preeclampsia was consistent across most prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Both asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections significantly increased the odds of developing preeclampsial; however, it was higher among patients with symptomatic illness (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-2.81) than among those with asymptomatic illness (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.10).
CONCLUSION
SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy is associated with higher odds of preeclampsia.
Topics: COVID-19; Female; Humans; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Public Health; Risk; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34302772
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.07.009 -
Transfusion Jul 2021In traumatic bleeding, transfusion practice has shifted toward higher doses of platelets and plasma transfusion. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In traumatic bleeding, transfusion practice has shifted toward higher doses of platelets and plasma transfusion. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether a higher platelet-to-red blood cell (RBC) transfusion ratio improves mortality without worsening organ failure when compared with a lower ratio of platelet-to-RBC.
METHODS
Pubmed, Medline, and Embase were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in bleeding trauma patients (age ≥16 years) receiving platelet transfusion between 1946 until October 2020. High platelet:RBC ratio was defined as being the highest ratio within an included study. Primary outcome was 24 hour mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, thromboembolic events, organ failure, and correction of coagulopathy.
RESULTS
In total five RCTs (n = 1757 patients) were included. A high platelet:RBC compared with a low platelet:RBC ratio significantly improved 24 hour mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.69 [0.53-0.89]) and 30- day mortality (OR 0.78 [0.63-0.98]). There was no difference between platelet:RBC ratio groups in thromboembolic events and organ failure. Correction of coagulopathy was reported in five studies, in which platelet dose had no impact on trauma-induced coagulopathy.
CONCLUSIONS
In traumatic bleeding, a high platelet:RBC improves mortality as compared to low platelet:RBC ratio. The high platelet:RBC ratio does not influence thromboembolic or organ failure event rates.
Topics: Blood Platelets; Erythrocyte Count; Erythrocytes; Hemorrhage; Humans; Platelet Count; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 34269443
DOI: 10.1111/trf.16455 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of different platelet count thresholds to guide administration of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.
BACKGROUND
Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review compares prophylactic platelet transfusion thresholds.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether different platelet transfusion thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect the efficacy and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, 23 July 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with haematological disorders (receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT) that compared different thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (low trigger (5 x 10(9)/L); standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L); higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L, 30 x 10(9)/L, 50 x 10(9)/L); or alternative platelet trigger (for example platelet mass)).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials met our predefined inclusion criteria and were included for analysis in the review (499 participants). All three trials compared a standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L) versus a higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). None of the trials compared a low trigger versus a standard trigger or an alternative platelet trigger. The trials were conducted between 1991 and 2001 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations.The original review contained four trials (658 participants); in the previous update of this review we excluded one trial (159 participants) because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder. We identified no new trials in this update of the review.Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Three studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the standard and higher trigger groups (three studies; 499 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.90; low-quality evidence).One study reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event (adjusted for repeated measures). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; relative proportion of days with World Health Organization Grade 2 or worse bleeding (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.48, P = 0.162; authors' own results; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no evidence of any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (two studies; 421 participants; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.88; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported the time to first bleeding episode. There was no evidence of any difference in the time to the first bleeding episode between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (one study; 255 participants; hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported on all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of any difference in all-cause mortality between standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.81; low-quality evidence).Three studies reported on the number of platelet transfusions per participant. Two studies reported on the mean number of platelet transfusions per participant. There was a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the standard trigger group (two studies, mean difference -2.09, 95% CI -3.20 to -0.99; low-quality evidence).One study reported on the number of transfusion reactions. There was no evidence to demonstrate any difference in transfusion reactions between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 79 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.09).None of the studies reported on quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with haematological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) is associated with no increase in the risk of bleeding when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). There was low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level is associated with a decreased number of transfusion episodes when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L).Findings from this review were based on three studies and 499 participants. Without further evidence, it is reasonable to continue with the current practice of administering prophylactic platelet transfusions using the standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) in the absence of other risk factors for bleeding.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bone Marrow Diseases; Hematologic Diseases; Hemorrhage; Humans; Platelet Count; Platelet Transfusion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stem Cell Transplantation; Thrombocytopenia
PubMed: 26576687
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010983.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis Jul 2022Hypercoagulability in lung cancer patients is associated with a high incidence of mortality and morbidity in the world. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to explore... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hypercoagulability in lung cancer patients is associated with a high incidence of mortality and morbidity in the world. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to explore the correlation of the basic coagulation abnormalities in lung cancer patients compared with the control.
METHOD
PubMed, Scopus, and other sources were employed to identify eligible studies. The outcome variable was expressed using mean ± standard deviation (SD). Heterogeneity among studies and publication bias were evaluated. The quality of included studies was also assessed based on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale checklist.
RESULT
Finally, through a total of eight studies, prolonged prothrombin time (PT; standard mean difference [SMD]: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.47-2.11), plasma D-dimer value (SMD 3.10; 95% CI 2.08-4.12), fibrinogen (SMD 2.18; 95% CI:1.30-3.06), and platelet (PLT) count (SMD 1.00; 95% CI 0.84-1.16) were significantly higher in lung cancer patients when compared with the control group. The single-arm meta-analysis also showed that compared with control, lung cancer patients had high pooled PT 13.7 (95% CI:12.2-15.58) versus 11.79 (95% CI = 10.56-13.02), high D-dimer 275.99 (95% CI:172.9-11735.9) versus 0.2 (95% CI:0.20-0.37), high plasma fibrinogen 5.50 (95% CI:4.21-6.79) versus 2.5 (95% CI:2.04-2.91), and high PLT count 342.3 (95% CI:236.1-448.5) versus 206.6 (95% CI:176.4-236.7).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, almost all the coagulation abnormalities were closely associated with lung cancer, and hence coagulation indexes provide an urgent clue for early diagnosis and timely management.
Topics: Blood Coagulation; Blood Coagulation Disorders; Blood Coagulation Tests; Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products; Fibrinogen; Humans; Lung Neoplasms
PubMed: 35719003
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24550 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Oct 2021To investigate the prevention of platelet transfusion refractoriness (PTR) by platelet antigen gene matching using literature search and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To investigate the prevention of platelet transfusion refractoriness (PTR) by platelet antigen gene matching using literature search and meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed (2000.1-2021.8), Embase (2000.1-2021.8), Cochrane (2010.1-2021.8), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database CBM (2010.1-2021.8) were selected as the search database platform. The keywords (HLA/Human leukocyte antigen), (HPA/Human platelet alloantigens), (genotyping/cross-match), platelet transfusion (PLT), and (CCI/Corrected Count Increment) were used for the joint search. After the literature was screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria, the Cochrane intervention handbook was used for bias risk assessment, and Revman 5.3.5 software was used for analysis to obtain the statistical forest plot and funnel plot.
RESULTS
The preliminary results revealed 255 publications, and seven (297 patients in total) were finally included in the quantitative analysis. A total of five publications reported comparison of the 1 h CCI index of HLA or HPA gene matching and PLT after random selection, and the heterogeneity test showed statistical difference (I2=49%, P=0.10). The combined statistical analysis results were: (MD =8.57, 95% CI: 7.30-9.80, Z=13.30, P<0.00001), and while six publications reported the effective rate index of PLT, and the heterogeneity test showed no statistical difference (I2=43%, P=0.12). The fixed effect mode was used to compare the effective rate of the two intervention methods (OR =4.90, 95% CI: 3.50-6.86, Z=9.23, P<0.00001).
DISCUSSION
HLA or HPA gene matching can improve the increment after PLT and reduce the incidence of ineffective PLT.
Topics: Antigens, Human Platelet; Blood Platelets; HLA Antigens; Humans; Platelet Transfusion; Thrombocytopenia
PubMed: 34763457
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2603 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... Mar 2024To determine whether the platelet dose administered during a platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for knee osteoarthritis (OA) affects clinical outcomes. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To determine whether the platelet dose administered during a platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for knee osteoarthritis (OA) affects clinical outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized controlled trials with at least 1 study arm using PRP for knee OA. Only studies that provided a platelet count, concentration, or dose with a minimum of 6-month outcome scores were included. Studies in which the PRP group had statistically significant positive outcomes were separated from those without statistical significance. The average platelet doses for studies with positive outcomes in the PRP group were compared with those without positive outcomes.
RESULTS
After exclusion criteria were applied, 29 studies were analyzed. Of the 29, there were 31 arms that used PRP as a treatment method, of which 28 had statistically significant positive outcomes at 6 months compared with the control group. The mean platelet dose in the 28 with a positive outcome was 5,500 ± 474 × 10, whereas the 3 that had no positive difference had a mean platelet dose of 2,302 ± 437 × 10 (P < .01). There were 18 studies with 12-month outcomes, with 16 of 18 having positive outcomes. The positive studies had an average platelet dose of 5,464 ± 511, whereas the studies that had no statistical difference had an average platelet dose of 2,253 ± 753 × 10 (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS
Improved clinical outcomes from PRP injections for knee OA may be related to a greater platelet dose.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
PubMed: 38513880
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.03.018 -
Qatar Medical Journal 2022Thrombolysis is an established therapeutic modality for patients with high-risk (and some selected intermediate-risk) pulmonary embolism (PE) with hemodynamic...
Thrombolysis is an established therapeutic modality for patients with high-risk (and some selected intermediate-risk) pulmonary embolism (PE) with hemodynamic instability. Physicians sometimes experience cases where both a high-risk PE and thrombocytopenia coexist. Although thrombocytopenia of < 100 × 10/mm is considered a contraindication in patients with ischemic stroke, the safety and outcomes of thrombolysis in patients with acute PE and thrombocytopenia are unknown. This systemic review aimed to pool data on the safety and outcomes of thrombolysis use in patients with PE and platelet count less than 150 × 10/mm. Patients' demographics, clinical characteristics, management, type of thrombolytic therapy, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. Of 283 articles identified through the systematic search, 11 case reports fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the patients was 52.27 years, and 54.5% were women. The median platelet level before thrombolysis was 65.50 × 10/mm. Before thrombolysis was initiated, the lowest and highest platelet levels were 29 × 10/mm and 105 × 10/mm, respectively. Alteplase was used in 10 patients and urokinase in one patient. One patient who had a massive PE died of aspiration pneumonia. Interestingly, no thrombocytopenia-related complications were reported. This systematic review highlights the potential benefits and safety of thrombolysis in patients with acute PE in the context of thrombocytopenia. Nevertheless, data available in the literature concerning this topic are scarce and limited to case reports. More extensive studies on the use of thrombolysis in patients with PE and thrombocytopenia are desperately needed. Systematic review registration: The protocol has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42021286415.
PubMed: 35974889
DOI: 10.5339/qmj.2022.33 -
Oncotarget May 2017Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. However, the prognostic and clinical value of platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in colorectal cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Increased platelet-lymphocyte ratio closely relates to inferior clinical features and worse long-term survival in both resected and metastatic colorectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 studies.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. However, the prognostic and clinical value of platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in colorectal cancer was still unclear, which attracted more and more researchers' considerable attention. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between PLR and survival as well as clinical features of CRC update to September 2016. The hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to access the association. We included 24 eligible studies with a total of 13719 patients. Elevated PLR predicted shorter overall survival (OS) (HR=1.47; 95%CI, 1.28-1.68; p<0.001), poorer disease-free survival (DFS) (HR=1.51; 95% CI, 1.2-1.91; p=0.001), and worse recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR=1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.86; p=0.03), but had nothing to do with Cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.92-1.42; p=0.223). After trim and fill method, the connection between PLR and DFS disappeared (HR=1.143; 95%CI, 0.903-1.447; p=0.267). By subgroup analyze, we found that increased PLR predicated a worse OS and DFS in patients who underwent surgery, and this prognostic role also shown both in metastatic and nonmetastatic patients. In addition, elevated PLR was associated with poorly differentiated tumor (OR=1.51; 95% CI, 1.26-1.81; p<0.001), higher tumor stage (OR=1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49; p=0.012), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (OR=1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.43; p=0.001), and the recurrence of CRC (OR=2.78; 95% CI, 1.36-5.68; p=0.005). We indicated that pretreatment PLR was a good prognostic marker for CRC patients. High PLR was related to worse OS, RFS and poor clinical characteristics.
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Lymphocyte Count; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Odds Ratio; Platelet Count; Prognosis; Publication Bias
PubMed: 28404961
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16020