4.6 Review

Inexpensive Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers in Ovarian Cancer: An Umbrella Systematic Review of 17 Prognostic Meta-Analyses

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.694821

关键词

ovarian cancer; lymphocyte-to-monocyte; neutrophil-to-lymphocyte; platelet-to-lymphocyte; systemic inflammatory biomarkers; umbrella review

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Research Institute IRC, Kingdom of Morocco

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The umbrella systematic review assessed 17 meta-analyses on the association between biomarkers and epithelial ovarian cancer outcomes, showing that high NLR and PLR, as well as low LMR, are independent predictors of poor prognosis. Most studies were conducted by Chinese researchers, highlighting issues of low quality and lacking critical domains.
The association of several inflammation-based biomarkers [lymphocyte-to-monocyte, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios (LMR, NLR, and PLR, respectively)] with the survival of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients has been extensively investigated in several systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MAs) of observational studies. The aim of this umbrella systematic review is to appraise all available results in published MAs that explored the association between these biomarkers and EOC outcomes. An umbrella systematic review of the current evidence for systemic inflammatory biomarkers in the peripheral blood of EOC patients was performed by searching several databases including PubMed/Medline and Web of Science. The quality of the MAs was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 tool as well as other qualitative criteria. The evidence was graded from convincing (Class I) to weak (Class IV). Our umbrella review appraised 17 MAs of retrospective studies (range: 7-16) with a number of enrolled patients ranging from 1,636 to 4,910 patients in each MA. All these MAs demonstrated that pretreatment high NLR and PLR, as well as low LMR, were independent predictors of poor overall survival and progression-free survival in EOC. Nearly all published MAs were conducted by Chinese researchers (16/17) and were redundant in their character. Another issue in these MAs is the absence of prior PROSPERO database registration as well as the earlier exclusion of the gray literature. On the other hand, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)-based reporting guidelines were used in nine out of the 17 MAs. A good number of MAs have transparently provided funding acknowledgment. The AMSTAR-2-based assessment showed low quality in 11 out of the 17 reviewed MAs. This negative rating was largely due to the absence of critical domains. Finally, all evaluated MAs were rated as Class III or IV (suggestive and weak, respectively). Despite the power of MAs in increasing sampling and precision, the quality of the current non-randomized evidence on this topic is still weak. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020201493.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据