Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Jun;95(24):e3837.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003837.

Prognostic role of platelet-lymphocyte ratio in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Prognostic role of platelet-lymphocyte ratio in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dewen Tan et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jun.

Erratum in

  • Erratum: Medicine, Volume 95, Issue 24: Erratum.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Aug 7;95(31):e5074. doi: 10.1097/01.md.0000490009.39850.74. eCollection 2016 Aug. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016. PMID: 31265618 Free PMC article.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chat of literature search and selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Meta-analysis of the association between elevated PLR and OS in patients with CRC, and (B) Forest plot of studies evaluating the association between PLR and DFS in CRC.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Sensitivity analyses for confirming robustness of OS by removing 1 study each time, while (B) the corresponding pooled HRs of DFS were materially changed by deleting each time.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot adjusted using a trim and fill method for (A) OS, and (B) for DFS. Diamonds: Included studies; diamonds in squares: Presumed missing studies.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plots showing the odds ratio (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), describing the association between elevated PLR and clinicopathological parameters. (A) Degree of tumor differentiation (poor vs well or moderate); (B) clinical stage (I+II vs III+IV); (C) depth of infiltration (T1+T2 vs T3+T4); (D) tumor of recurrence (yes vs no).

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:7–30. - PubMed
    1. O’Connell JB, Maggard MA, Ko CY. Colon cancer survival rates with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition staging. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1420–5. - PubMed
    1. Oliphant R, Nicholson GA, Horgan PG, et al. Deprivation and colorectal cancer surgery: longer-term survival inequalities are due to differential postoperative mortality between socioeconomic groups. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:2132–9. - PubMed
    1. Trakarnsanga A, Gonen M, Shia J, et al. Comparison of tumor regression grade systems for locally advanced rectal cancer after multimodality treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:pii: dju248. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hari DM, Leung AM, Lee JH, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 7th edition criteria for colon cancer: do the complex modifications improve prognostic assessment? J Am Coll Surg 2013;217:181–90. - PMC - PubMed