4.6 Article

A reliable and feasible way to predict the benefits of Nivolumab in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of 14 retrospective studies

Journal

ONCOIMMUNOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1507262

Keywords

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; Nivolumab; immunotherapy; lung cancer; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Nivolumab has been used for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) worldwide. Whether neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) can predict the prognosis of NSCLC treated with Nivolumab is still under debate. This meta-analysis was to assess the significance of NLR as a predictive factor in NSCLC patients receiving Nivolumab. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched to identify eligible studies evaluating the role of NLR in predicting prognosis of NSCLC treated with Nivolumab until March 2018 without language restrictions. The meta-analysis was performed using hazard ratio (HR) of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in NSCLC patients with various NLR. Results: A total of 14 retrospective studies consisting of 1225 NSCLC patients were included. The combined results showed that relatively higher baseline NLR was associated with poor PFS (HR = 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI):1.18-1.77; p < 0.05) and OS (HR = 1.75; 95% CI: 1.33-2.30; p < 0.05) after treatment of Nivolumab. Subgroup analysis suggested that NLR >= 5 was more reliable for PFS (HR = 1.73; 95%CI: 1.14, 2.62; p < 0.05) and OS (HR = 1.76; 95%CI: 1.47, 2.10; p < 0.05). In addition, post-treatment NLR also had predictive roles for PFS (HR = 3.17; 95%CI: 1.48, 6.82; p < 0.05) and OS (HR = 2.26; 95%CI: 1.05, 4.86; p < 0.05). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that NLR can be used as a prognostic biomarker for NSCLC treating with Nivolumab, and the recommended cutoff value of NLR is 5.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available