==== Front OncotargetOncotargetOncotargetImpactJOncotarget1949-2553Impact Journals LLC 284188701629110.18632/oncotarget.16291Meta-AnalysisNeutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as prognostic indicator in gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis Bowen Randy C. 1Little Nancy Ann B. 1Harmer Joshua R. 1Ma Junjie 2Mirabelli Luke G. 1Roller Kyle D. 1Breivik Andrew Mackay 1Signor Emily 1Miller Alec B. 1Khong Hung T. 11 Department of Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA2 Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USACorrespondence to:Hung T. Khong,gabrielle54@example.org 5 2017 16 3 2017 8 19 32171 32189 19 8 2016 20 2 2017 Copyright: © 2017 Bowen et al.2017This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.An accurate, time efficient, and inexpensive prognostic indicator is needed to reduce cost and assist with clinical decision making for cancer management. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), which is derived from common serum testing, has been explored in a variety of cancers. We sought to determine its prognostic value in gastrointestinal cancers and performed a meta-analysis of published studies using the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Included were randomized control trials and observational studies that analyzed humans with gastrointestinal cancers that included NLR and hazard ratios (HR) with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or cancer-specific survival (CSS). We analyzed 144 studies comprising 45,905 patients, two-thirds of which were published after 2014. The mean, median, and mode cutoffs for NLR reporting OS from multivariate models were 3.4, 3.0, 5.0 (±IQR 2.5-5.0), respectively. Overall, NLR greater than the cutoff was associated with a HR for OS of 1.63 (95% CI, 1.53-1.73; P < 0.001). This association was observed in all subgroups based on tumor site, stage, and geographic region. HR for elevated NLR for DFS, PFS, and CSS were 1.70 (95% CI, 1.52-1.91, P < 0.001), 1.64 (95% CI, 1.36-1.97, P < 0.001), and 1.83 (95% CI, 1.50-2.23, P < 0.001), respectively. Available evidence suggests that NLR greater than the cutoff reduces OS, independent of geographic location, gastrointestinal cancer type, or stage of cancer. Furthermore, DFS, PFS, and CSS also have worse outcomes with elevated NLR. neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratiogastrointestinal cancersprognostic indicatoroverall survivalbiomarkers ==== Body INTRODUCTION As the genomic revolution advances, more molecular biomarkers have been discovered that can serve as druggable targets or prognosticators of therapeutic efficacy, disease recurrence, or survival. Though exciting to provide these novel options for patients, the cost of employing these molecular markers and the time to send off and obtain results can be significant. Therefore, even in this day of genomic and proteomic advancements, a simple, inexpensive and readily available prognostic marker is still highly desirable. One of the simplest and most readily available tests in the clinic is the complete blood cell count (CBC), which reports the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and absolute lymphocyte count (ALC). The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), calculated by dividing the ANC by the ALC, can serve as an index of systemic inflammatory response in critically ill patients [1]. The microenvironments of inflammation, created by mediators and cellular effectors, are recognized as both a condition that leads to cancer development, as well as an outcome that results from cancer cell growth [2]. Building on the six classic hallmarks of cancer, tumor-promoting inflammation is now widely accepted as an enabling characteristic, which supports multiple cancer hallmark capabilities [3]. Therefore, NLR may help to reflect systemic inflammation in patients with cancer and their immunologic capacity to mount an attack against the malignant cells. An increasing number of recent reports suggest that NLR can be used as a prognostic marker in various malignancies. This meta-analysis aims to determine the prognostic value of NLR in gastrointestinal (GI) cancers for overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), progression free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS We identified 4,594 articles of which 372 were selected for full-text review (Figure 1). 143 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 141 were retrospective cohort studies, one was a retrospective case control study, and one was a prospective RCT. One article included 2 cancer site studies [4], resulting in 144 cancer site studies. Publication dates ranged from 2008 to 2016 with more than two-thirds published after 2014. A total of 118, 53, 10, and 19 studies performed analyses on OS, DFS, PFS, and CSS, respectively. Gastrointestinal disease site included cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, esophageal carcinoma, gastric cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, hepatocellular carcinoma, and pancreatic cancer. Of the 144 cancer site studies, 52 included non-metastatic cancer, 23 included metastatic cancers, and 69 included a mix of both disease stages. Participants in 71 studies received more than one treatment modality (chemotherapy, surgery, radiation), participants in 52 studies underwent only surgery as therapy, 19 studies reported only chemotherapy, and participants in two studies were treated only with radiation therapy. Studies were conducted in multiple countries including Australia (N = 4; 2.8%), Austria (N = 3; 2.1%), Canada (N = 3; 2.1%), China (N = 48; 33.3%), Ireland (N = 1; 0.7%), Italy (N = 4; 2.8%), Japan (N = 30; 20.8%), Singapore (N = 1; 0.7%), Korea (N = 21;14.6%), Taiwan (N = 5; 3.5%), Turkey (N = 2; 1.4%); United Kingdom (N = 13; 9%), and the United States (N = 9; 6.3%). The median cutoff for the NLR among all included studies was 3.0 (±IQR = 2.495-5.0). There were 229 studies excluded, most commonly due to the absence of primary outcome measurements (OS, DFS, PFS, and CSS) or the HR for these primary outcomes. Full text papers could not be located for 2 studies. In cases where there were redundant study populations between multiple publications, we only used the most recent publication and excluded prior studies (Table 1). Figure 1 Flowchart of study selection Flow diagram of study selection process for the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio meta-analysis of GI cancers. HR = Hazard Ratio; OS = Overall survival; CSS = Cancer specific survival; NLR = Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte ratio; GI = Gastrointestinal; CI = Confidence Interval. Table 1 Characteristics of included studies Characteristics Studies Patients References N=144 (%) N=45,905 (%) Year of Publication 2008 1 (1) 440 (1) [41] 2009 3 (2) 614 (1) [42–44] 2010 5 (3) 1,538 (3) [45–49] 2011 8 (6) 2,231 (5) [50–57] 2012 12 (8) 4,518 (10) [4, (647)677-4602 (10) 3,992 (9) [68–81] 2014 32 (22) 8,260 (18) [82–113] 2015 48 (34) 17,501 (38) [5, 114–160] 2016 21 (15) 6,474 (14) [161–181] Study Type Case control Retrospective 1 (1) 93 (<1) [62] Cohort Retrospective 141 (99) 44,614 (98) [4, 41–61, 63–181] Randomized control trial Prospective 1 (1) 861 (2) [5] Hazard Ratios Overall survival Multivariate 110 (77) 36,884 (80) [4, 5, 41–43, 47–61, 63–67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 77, 81, 84, 88, 91–104, 106, 107, 110–113, 115–119, 123–131, 134, 137–143, 146–148, 151–160, 164, 166, 168–171, 173–179, 181] Univariate 74 (51) 23,069 (50) [41–45, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 64–66, 68, 69, 74, 77, 81, 82, 87, 91, 93, 94, 97–101, 105, 108, 110, 112–118, 121, 123–126, 128–130, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 144, 146–148, 150, 151, 155, 156, 158, 161, 166, 169, 171, 173–179, 181] Disease-free survival Multivariate 44 (31) 14201 (31) [4, 42, 46, 52, 55, 57, 58, 62, 66, 67, 70, 75, 76, 89, 90, 92, 96, 97, 99, 100, 106, 109, 110, 112, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 125, 139, 145, 149, 151, 156, 158, 165, 170, 171, 175, 176, 178, 179, 181] Univariate 35 (24) 7745 (17) [42, 44, 46, 55, 58, 66, 74, 75, 78, 83, 89, 90, 97, 100, 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 125, 135, 137, 139, 144, 145, 151, 155, 156, 158, 166, 171, 175, 178, 179, 181] Progression-free survival Multivariate 7 (5) 1,203 (3) [50, 61, 84, 102, 111, 118, 126] Univariate 6 (4) 615 (1) [60, 61, 118, 126, 129, 147] Cancer-specific survival Multivariate 15 (10) 4,586 (10) [71, 79, 80, 89, 90, 103, 110, 119, 120, 133, 138, 145, 149, 173, 180] Univariate 13 (9) 3,400 (7) [71, 79, 80, 85, 86, 89, 90, 110, 133, 145, 167, 172, 173] Disease Site Cholangiocarcinoma 4 (3) 1,272 (3) [94, 105, 174, 175] Colorectal carcinoma 47 (32) 14,891 (32) [4, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 52, 58, 61, 63, 67, 68, 71, 75, 79, 85, 86, 89, 90, 97–100, 103, 110, 115, 117, 118, 122, 124–126, 135, 137, 138, 140, 145, 147–150, 155, 169, 172, 179] Esophageal carcinoma 14 (10) 4,101 (9) [54, 55, 69, 111, 112, 120, 129, 133, 146, 167, 171, 173, 180, 181] Gastric cancer 23 (16) 11,196 (24) [48, 53, 60, 62, 66, 72, 73, 84, 87, 88, 95, 104, 119, 127, 130, 131, 142, 159, 164] Gastrointestinal stromal tumor 4 (3) 630 (1) [78, 83, 144, 165] Hepatocellular carcinoma 34 (24) 9,170 (20) [42, 51, 56, 59, 64, 70, 74, 76, 77, 82, 91, 92, 96, 102, 106, 107, 109, 113, 116, 121, 123, 132, 136, 139, 152, 154, 156–158, 160, 168, 170, 176] Pancreatic cancer 18 (13) 4,642 (10) [5, 45, 65, 80, 81, 93, 108, 114, 128, 134, 141, 151, 161–163, 166, 177, 178] Disease Stage Nonmetastatic 52 (36) 19,373 (41) [4, 42, 46, 58, 59, 62, 68–70, 74, 76, 78, 83, 86, 88, 90, 96, 100, 106, 107, 109, 111, 114, 117, 120–122, 129–133, 135, 137, 140, 146, 149, 158, 159, 162, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 176, 178–181] Metastatic 23 (16) 5,343 (12) [5, 41, 44, 50, 60, 61, 67, 82, 84, 95, 97, 101, 104, 115, 118, 124–126, 138, 147, 150, 172, 177] Mixed 69 (48) 21,189 (46) [43, 45, 47–49, 51, 53–57, 63–66, 71–73, 75, 77, 79–81, 85, 87, 89, 91–94, 98, 99, 102, 103, 105, 108, 110, 112, 113, 116, 119, 123, 127, 128, 134, 136, 139, 141–145, 148, 151–157, 160, 161, 163, 164, 167, 169, 173–175] Treatment Method Resection 52 (36) 19,798 (43) [42, 46, 48, 52, 62, 69, 70, 72, 74–76, 78, 79, 83, 85, 86, 92, 96, 104–106, 109, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 127, 130–133, 135, 139, 140, 142, 146, 149, 153, 157, 158, 163, 165–171, 175, 176, 178] Chemotherapy 19 (13) 4,071 (9) [5, 45, 50, 51, 60, 61, 81, 84, 91, 102, 107, 108, 118, 121, 126, 134, 141, 147, 174] Radiation 2 (1) 366 (1) [59, 161] Mixed 71 (49) 21,670 (47) [4, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 53–58, 63, 64, 66–68, 71, 73, 77, 80, 82, 87–90, 93–95, 97–101, 103, 110–115, 123–125, 128, 129, 136–138, 143–145, 148, 150–152, 154–156, 159, 160, 162, 164, 172, 173, 177, 179–181] NLR Cutoff < 3.0 55 (38) 19,656 (43) [47, 53, 57, 59, 62, 70, 72, 77–79, 83, 88, 90–92, 97, 98, 100–102, 105, 107, 111, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 123, 124, 126, 128–133, 140–142, 144–146, 148, 153, 156, 160, 162, 164, 169, 170, 173, 176, 180, 181] 3.0 to 3.99 35 (24) 12,197 (27) [4, 5, 51, 57, 60, 69, 73, 81, 84, 85, 87, 89, 94, 95, 104, 109, 110, 121, 122, 134–136, 138, 143, 147, 149, 155, 159, 163, 166–168, 175, 177] 4.0 to 4.99 14 (10) 3,501 (8) [46, 48, 54, 61, 68, 76, 82, 103, 106, 125, 137, 154, 157, 158] ≥ 5.0 40 (28) 10,214 (22) [41, 43–45, 49, 50, 52, 55, 58, 63–67, 71, 74, 75, 80, 86, 93, 96, 99, 108, 112, 113, 115, 118, 127, 139, 150–152, 165, 171, 172, 174, 178, 179] Study Origin Asia/Oceania Australia 4 (3) 1,552 (3) [5, 50, 93, 179] China 48 (33) 16,051 (37) [45–47, 51, 56, 57, 65–67, 69, 70, 88, 91, 92, 100, 104–107, 110, 112–114, 116, 119–121, 123, 129, 132–134, 141–143, 146, 153, 156–160, 168, 170, 175, 176, 180, 181] Japan 30 (21) 7,704 (17) [48, 49, 54, 61, 76, 79, 82, 87, 90, 95, 101, 102, 108, 109, 128, 135, 137, 139, 147, 148, 154, 155, 162, 163, 166, 167, 169, 172, 173, 178] Korea 21 (15) 6,880 (15) [53, 60, 62, 63, 72, 73, 77, 84, 85, 89, 96, 99, 111, 130, 131, 145, 149, 150, 171, 174, 177] Singapore 1 (1) 300 (1) [165] Taiwan 5 (4) 5,311 (12) [4, 52, 59, 127] Europe/ Mediterranean Austria 3 (2) 1,552 (2) [68, 80, 124] Ireland 1 (1) 85 (0) [81] Italy 4 (3) 699 (2) [118, 122, 126, 164] Turkey 2 (1) 348 (1) [83, 98] United Kingdom 13 (9) 2,689 (6) [41, 42, 44, 58, 64, 71, 75, 86, 97, 103, 125, 138, 140] Northern America Canada 3 (2) 1,506 (3) [94, 117, 144] United States 9 (6) 1,968 (4) [43, 55, 74, 78, 115, 136, 151, 152, 161] Overall survival 110 studies including 36,884 patients reported a HR for OS based on a multivariate model. 6 studies reported a HR for OS, but failed to use a multivariate model and therefore were not included in our main analysis. For an analysis of hazard ratios for OS using univariate models, see Table 2. The mean, median, and mode cutoff for NLR reporting OS from multivariate model was 3.4, 3.0, 5.0 (±IQR 2.5, 5.0), respectively with 39 studies using 5.0 compared to 25 studies using 3.0. A forest plot depicting OS for included studies is shown in Figure 2. Overall, NLR greater than the cutoff value was associated with a hazard ratio for OS of 1.63 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.73; P < 0.001). Table 2 Sensitivity analysis Studies HR UL of 95% CI LL of 95% CI P of heterogeneity chi-squared Overall survival Model type 0.001 Multivariate 1.63 1.53 1.73 Univariate 1.92 1.78 2.08 C-index 0.002 Yes 1.45 1.35 1.56 No 1.79 1.60 2.00 NLR cutoff 0.026 ≤(647)677-4602 >(647)677-4602 Stage 0.565 Metastatic 1.75 1.36 2.24 Mixed 1.67 1.54 1.81 Nonmetastatic 1.56 1.39 1.76 Disease free survival Model type 0.142 Multivariate 1.71 1.52 1.91 Univariate 1.99 1.69 2.36 C-index 0.005 Yes 1.48 1.31 1.67 No 2.10 1.70 2.60 NLR cutoff 0.012 ≤(647)677-4602 >(647)677-4602 Stage 0.799 Metastatic 1.51 0.90 2.53 Mixed 1.78 1.42 2.22 Nonmetastatic 1.66 1.45 1.91 Progression free survival Model type 0.728 Multivariate 1.64 1.36 1.97 Univariate 1.45 0.74 2.82 C-index 0.785 Yes 1.76 1.28 2.41 No 1.66 1.26 2.19 NLR cutoff 0.140 ≤3 1.51 1.28 1.78 >3 2.27 1.36 3.81 Stage 0.386 Metastatic 1.78 1.36 2.34 Mixed 1.36 1.01 1.84 Nonmetastatic 1.80 1.05 3.08 Cancer specific survival Model type 0.117 Multivariate 1.83 1.50 2.23 Univariate 2.27 1.89 2.72 C-index 0.105 Yes 1.61 1.24 2.10 No 2.12 1.73 2.60 NLR cutoff 0.173 ≤(647)677-4602 >3 2.20 1.42 3.40 Stage 0.049 Metastatic 1.93 1.40 2.66 Mixed 2.18 1.68 2.84 Nonmetastatic 1.37 1.04 1.80 Abbreviations: HR = Hazard ratio, NLR = Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, C-index = Receiver operating characteristic curves for selection of cutoff, Figure 2 Overall survival analysis Overall survival analysis of NLR cut off, geographic location, and disease stage. A. Overall survival in patients with GI cancers and per individual GI cancer types. B. Overall survival analysis within geographic regions. C. Overall survival within each disease stage. The prognostic effect of NLR on OS among subgroups based on disease site is shown in Figure 2A. The disease site with the greatest HR for OS was colorectal cancer (HR = 2.04; 95% CI 1.79 to 2.33), followed by pancreatic cancer (HR = 1.90; 95% CI 1.43 to 2.52), esophageal carcinoma (HR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.32 to 1.95), cholangiocarcinoma (HR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.05), gastric cancer (HR = 1.47; 95% CI 1.25 to 1.72) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.52). The prognostic effect of NLR on OS among subgroups based on geographic location is shown in Figure 2B. The largest portion of patients in the OS analysis was in the Asia/Oceania region (81.07%), but they had the lowest gabrielle54@example.org (95% CI 1.43 to 1.63). By comparison, the HR for Northern America was 1.64 (95% CI 1.38 to 1.95) and the HR for Europe/Mediterranean was 2.32 (95% CI 1.93 to 2.77). The prognostic effect of NLR on OS among subgroups based on disease stage is shown in Figure 2C. The median NLR cutoff value for metastatic disease was 3.55 (±IQR 3 to 5), whereas the median NLR cutoff value for nonmetastatic disease was 2.97 (±IQR 2 to 4). This difference between the NLR cutoff values in metastatic versus nonmetastatic disease was statistically significant (P = 0.0134). The HR for a high NLR on OS in metastatic disease was 1.75 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.24). The HR for nonmetastatic disease was 1.56 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.76). The HR for mixed disease stages was 1.67 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.81). There was no statistical difference in OS between the nonmetastatic and metastatic cancer groups at their NLR cutoff values (0.64; d.f. = 1; P = 0.423). Sensitivity analyses of the included studies are reported in Table 2. In analyzing OS, we found statistically significant differences in HR when comparing multivariate and univariate analyses (P = 0.001), presence of C-index to select NLR cutoff (P = 0.002), and NLR < 3 compared to > 3 (P = 0.026). However, there was no difference when comparing disease stages (metastatic, mixed, non-metastatic (P = 0.565)). The meta-regression scatter plot showed minor but statistically significant association between NLR cutoff and the hazard ratio for OS (β = 0.224; P = 0.019) (Supplementary Figure 1). Disease-free (recurrence-free) survival 44 studies including 14,201 patients reported hazard ratios for DFS or RFS analyzed in a multivariate model. The median cutoff for a high NLR was 3 (±IQR 2.4 to 5.0). For DFS, NLR greater than the cutoff value was associated with a HR of 1.70 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.91, P < 0.001; I-squared = 76.5%). There were not statistically significant differences among the hazard ratios of different subgroups based on disease site (Heterogeneity chi-squared = 3.74 (d.f. = 6) P = 0.711) (Figure 3A). For an analysis of hazard ratios for DFS using univariate models, see Table 2. Figure 3 Disease and progression free survival with cancer-specific survival analysis Subgroup survival analysis based on cancer site. A. Disease-free survival of five cancer types. B. Progression free survival of four cancer types. C. Cancer specific survival of four cancer types. Progression-free survival 7 studies including 1,213 patients reported hazard ratios for PFS analyzed in a multivariate model. The median cutoff for a high NLR was 3 (±IQR 2 - 5). For PFS, NLR greater than the cutoff value was associated with a HR of 1.64 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.97, P < 0.001; I-squared = 21.0%). There were not statistically significant differences among the hazard ratios of different subgroups based on disease site (Heterogeneity chi-squared = 3.37 (d.f. = 3) P = 0.338) (Figure 3B). For an analysis of hazard ratios for PFS using univariate models, see Table 2. Cancer-specific survival 15 studies including 4,586 patients reported hazard ratios for CSS analyzed in a multivariate model. The median cutoff for a high NLR was 3 (±IQR 2.36 - 4.75). For CSS, NLR greater than the cutoff value was associated with a HR of 1.83 (95% CI = 1.50 to 2.23, P < 0.001; I-squared = 56.9%). There was a small, but statistically significant difference in the hazard ratios for CSS between the colorectal cancer and esophageal carcinoma subgroups (Heterogeneity chi-squared = 7.82; (d.f. = 1); P = 0.005) (Figure 3C). For an analysis of hazard ratios for CSS using univariate models, see Table 2. The heterogeneity observed in these analyses was largely due to observational studies and variation between comparable characteristic, such as the use of C-index to determine the NLR cut-off value and whether the patient had metastatic versus non-metastatic lesions (Table 2). We found that the HR for studies without C-index justification was 1.79 (95% 1.60 to 2.00), and the HR for studies using C-index as justification is 1.45 (95% 1.35 to 1.56). The p-value for chi-squared test is 0.002 for these two groups. This indicated that studies which failed to report how they chose cutoff are more likely to report higher HR, compared to studies reported how they chose the cutoff of NLR. Risk of bias summary Confounding was the most severe risk of bias within our included studies (Table 3 and Supplementary Figure 2). The retrospective nature of most studies accounted for the high likelihood for confounding variables. Many studies performed analyses to adjust for confounders. Bias in selection of participants and in measurement of interventions was low risk in the majority of studies. In terms of bias due to departures from intended interventions, three studies displayed moderate risk and one had serious risk. Bias due to missing data was primarily low risk due to the lack of missing observations and incomplete data reporting. Bias in selection of the reported outcomes was mostly attributed to lack of measurement reporting and lack of utilizing numerous analysis methods. A funnel plot revealed potential publication bias as seen with asymmetric distribution (Supplementary Figure 3). The Egger's test indicated possible publication bias with the regression line not originating in the Y-axis zero (Bias = 4.165 (95% CI 3.546 to 4.784) P < 0.001) as well as a P < 0.05 indicating small study effect (Supplementary Figure 4). Table 3 Risk of bias percent summary Risk of Bias Summary Analysis Risk of Bias Severity Bias due to confounding Bias in selection of participants into study Bias in measurement of interventions Bias due to departures from intended interventions Bias due to missing data Bias in measurement of outcomes Bias in selection of reported result Low N=8; 6% N=136; 95% N=136; 95% N=139; 97% N=135; 94% N=143; 100% N=127; 89% Moderate N=112; 78% N=7; 5% N=7; 5% N=3; 2% N=8; 6% N=0; 0% N=16; 11% Serious N=21; 15% N=0; 0% N=0; 0% N=1; 1% N=0; 0% N=0; 0% N=0; 0% Critical N=2; 1% N=0; 0% N=0; 0% N=0; 0% N=0; 0% N=0; 0% N=0; 0% DISCUSSION An accurate, time efficient, and inexpensive prognostic indicator is needed to reduce cost and assist with clinical decision making for cancer management. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified over a decade and a half of data from 45,905 GI cancer patients that underwent neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio testing to determine OS as well as DFS, PFS, or CSS. 143 studies were retrospective, with one correlation study of NLR with a phase III RCT [5]. We report overall moderate risk of bias in our studies due the effects of retrospective analyses with confounding, small sample-size, and variation in some comparable measurements. Colorectal, gastric, and hepatocelluar were the most common cancer sites. Asian populations were the most frequently studied, representing 76% of the total number of patients. The pooled HR for OS was 1.63 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.73), indicating that patients with NLR higher than cutoff were 63% more likely to die than patients with NLR lower than the cutoff. OS greater than NLR cutoff was independent of geographic location, GI cancer type, or stage of cancer (Figure 2). The overall median NLR cutoff for OS was 3.0, which was lower than other studies comparing solid tumors [6]. Our analysis shows that a NLR greater than the cutoff value predict worse OS. Overall HR of DFS (1.70), PFS (1.64), and CSS (1.83), also suggest that elevated NLR indicate worse prognosis. However, since PFS analyzes disease progression, a low NLR cutoff may not result in a significant difference; consequently, a higher cutoff level may be more appropriate for metastatic disease. Across all geographic locations we found that patients with elevated NLR were more likely to have worse OS. This further supports the prognostic value of NLR in GI cancers, independent of genetic variation at the population level. Individual-level analyses are needed to further validate this hypothesis. Interestingly, studies of European/Mediterranean patients had a significantly larger HR than studies from Asia/Oceania and North America. This could mean that people of Europe/Mediterranean are more sensitive to high NLR for worse OS, or that Europe/Mediterranean studies are more likely to report a higher HR. Possible confounding factors include poor study design, difference in patterns of care in geographic locations or small sample sizes. Despite these differences, our geographic analysis supports NLR above cutoff as a predictive index for overall survival. The heterogeneity observed in these analyses was largely due to observational studies and variation between comparable characteristic, such as the use of C-index to determine the NLR cut-off value and whether the patient had metastatic versus non-metastatic lesions (Table 2). We found that the HR for studies without C-index justification was 1.79 (95% 1.60 to 2.00), and the HR for studies using C-index as justification is 1.45 (95% 1.35 to 1.56). The p-value for the chi-squared test was 0.002 for these two groups. This suggests that studies without C-index justification were more likely to report higher HR. Prognostic value of the NLR The association between chronic inflammation and carcinogenesis has long been recognized, with examples such as gastric reflux and esophageal adenocarcinoma, H. pylori infection and gastric cancers, and chronic colonic ulcers and adenocarcinoma of the colon. More recently, the role of inflammation in tumor progression has been explored, with particular focus on the tumor microenvironment. Interactions between tumor and immune cells result in manipulation and misregulation of the immune response. Elevated NLR suggests a systemic inflammatory state and can be indicative of neutrophilia, lymphopenia, or a combination of both. It has been linked to disease states including but not limited to endometriosis [7], acute coronary syndrome [8], Alzheimer's disease [9], and a variety of cancers. Subsequent investigations have explored its use as a prognostic factor. Neutrophilia can occur in cancer patients due to increased myeloid cell production, potentially resulting from ectopic colony-stimulating factor [10, 11]. Not only can circulating neutrophil levels rise, but neutrophils can localize to the tumor due to multiple factors, including general inflammatory signals like IL-1 and TNF-alpha [12], as well as IL-8 release triggered by hypoxic conditions of the tumor microenvironment [13]. Once present, TGF-β [14] produced by altered stromal cells [15] can activate neutrophils. Although many of the details are unclear, neutrophils are thought to primarily propagate a pro-tumor environment by secreting molecules such as VEGF, MMP-9 [16], and reactive oxygen species [17]. The respective effects of these molecules include promoting angiogenesis and tumor growth, degrading the ECM and providing favorable conditions for metastasis, and potentiating genome instability and tumor evolution. A recent study also demonstrated the expression of the T-cell-negative-regulatory molecule PD-L1 on tumor infiltrating neutrophils that could functionally inhibit the activation of T cells [18]. Lymphopenia in the context of cancer also suggests more aggressive disease progression. Examinations of the tumor microenvironment have shown a correlation between tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and prognosis in gastrointestinal [19, 20] and many other cancers [21], with decreased TIL populations linked to worse survival, and vice versa. The details, however, of lymphopenia are more convoluted than that of neutrophilia, in part due to the varied subsets and roles of lymphocytes. The immune system can produce tumor-specific CD8+ cytotoxic T cells (CTLs) that act to inhibit tumor progression [22], and thus lymphopenia suggests that the immune system is unable to perform anti-tumor activities. Tumors are postulated to evade the cytotoxic effects of CTLs [23] via evolving anti-apoptotic genes [24] or modulating the expression levels of cell-cell interaction proteins [25, 26]. CD4+ T cells are also found in the tumor microenvironment, the majority of which are regulatory T cells (Tregs) and Th17 cells [27]. Tregs are elevated in many cancers and are considered to be generally immunosuppressive, thus limiting the host immune response to the tumor and enabling tumor progression. While there is nuance when exploring the different lymphocyte subtypes and comparing tumors of different origins, in broad terms, lymphocytes have anti-tumor activity and thus lymphopenia indicates an environment conducive to tumor progression. Whether due to neutrophilia or lymphopenia, elevated NLR physiologically suggests an inability of the immune system to suppress cancer progression. Consequently, the NLR cut-off value leverages the balance of neutrophilia and leukopenia to suggests a quantitative index for overall survival in GI cancer patients. NLR offers a noninvasive, low-cost, early opportunity to assess patient status and prognosis. Costs of cancer are increasing rapidly; in the US alone, an estimated $124.57 billion was spent in 2010 and that is projected to grow to $157.77 billion by 2020 [28]. These costs are concentrated in initial and terminal stages across multiple types of cancer, including but not limited to gastrointestinal cancers [29]. The majority of these expenses are incurred via hospital costs [30] and increases are largely driven by growing use and cost of chemotherapy and radiation therapy [31]. NLR could be used, for instance, prior to intervention to allow patients and physicians to make better decisions about the course of treatment that may be more cost-effective. For example, BRAF inhibitor has been shown to induce CD8+ T cells infiltration into tumors and may even be dependent on immune infiltration for its anticancer activity [32]. Therefore, NLR could potentially be used to select patients who may or may not benefit from BRAF inhibitor. Determining which patients will most benefit from treatment is especially important in light of increasing treatment costs [33]. NLR does not have the specificity of biomarkers derived from tumor tissue, such as analysis of gene mutations or protein expression levels, and hence has limitations on the applicability of some targeted therapies. However, many of these other biomarkers currently in use or development require obtaining tissue and are orders of magnitude more expensive than calculating NLR. Elevated NLR is particularly attractive as a prognostic biomarker for cancer due to its affordability and accessibility. NLR is derived from complete blood count (CBC) analysis, which is regularly measured in cancer patients, and thus does not pose an additional cost or burden to patients or the medical system. Furthermore, the technology to analyze CBC, and thus NLR, is found beyond developed economies. Efficacious and inexpensive tools need to be explored for global use to deal with the rising incidence of cancer [34]. Developing and employing NLR as a prognostic biomarker for gastrointestinal cancers has the potential to impact a large number of patients and to improve clinical decision-making. Refining our understanding of NLR via continued and prospective study, as well as finding other low-cost biomarkers, should be a future focus in order for medical systems around the globe to improve health care access. Study strengths and limitations We performed a detailed literature search using 5 search engines aggregating data from over 45,500 patients. We included both English and non-English publications. Furthermore, we used Cochrane and other risk of bias analysis tools to provide insight to the weaknesses and strengths of each study. The funnel plot asymmetry suggests publication bias, which has a variety of potential sources. First, extrapolating from the results of the sensitivity analysis (Table 2), NLR might have a better predictability for patients with an advanced cancer stage. We did not have an inclusion criteria for the cancer stage. Among the 112 studies which reported an adjusted HR for OS, 57 studies did not report the cancer stage of patients. Second, we did not limit the types of treatment and cancer in the pooled analysis. The NLR may have different predictability for patients receiving different treatments. Another possibility is the heterogeneity in the methodological quality of each study. Confounding effect was reported as overall moderate as a consequence of the retrospective analyses, and could contribute to funnel plot asymmetry. Limitations of this study include the predominance of observational studies and lack of RCTs. Further complication to the primary outcomes are the known correlation of NLR with other life threatening condition such as cardiovascular [35, 36], renal [37], and hepatic disease [38]. Therefore, to mitigate confounding, incorporating NLR in future RCTs is needed. CONCLUSIONS Our meta-analysis pooled 45,905 patients to assess the prognostic indication of NLR with GI cancers reported in 144 studies of variable risk of bias. These studies evaluated the prognostic significance of elevated NLR in different GI cancers. Our meta-analysis suggests that across all GI cancers identified in this study, a NLR greater than cutoff values indicates reduced OS regardless of geographic location or cancer stage. Furthermore, worse DFS, PFS, and CSS outcomes were associated with high NLR. The individual cancer types analyzed and disease stages had varying median NLR cutoff values that appear to predict survival prognosis and could be used for appropriate treatment planning. NLR should be included in correlative studies in future clinical trials to further assess and validate these findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a meta-analysis of published literature using the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines [39]. We considered studies that compared serum NLR to the OS, DFS, PFS or CSS of patients with GI cancers. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) by cancer site, geographic location, and cancer stage using multivariate analysis. We included DFS, PFS and CSS as secondary endpoints analyses based on cancer site. Univariate analyses of OS, DFS, PFS and CSS for each GI cancer type were also performed. Inclusion/exclusion criteria We included studies that met the following criteria: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCT, cohort, or case control; 2) patient size greater than N = 20 patients; 3) analyzed humans with GI cancers that included NLR and hazard ratios with associated 95% confidence interval with OS, DFS, PFS, and CSS. We defined GI cancers as cancers that originated from structures between the esophagus and rectum, including the hepatobiliary-pancreatic system. We excluded studies that did not report original data, did not have HR or confidence interval for the survival analysis, lacked NLR, were duplicates, or presented redundant patient populations Database search We identified published studies from PubMed (National Library of Medicine), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), EMBASE (Embase.com), and Cochrane Library (Wiley Interscience) electronic databases from inception to March 3 2016. There were no language restrictions. We developed a detailed search strategy specific for each electronic database to enhance our search results (online Supplement). EndNote X7 was used for de-duplication (EndNote, Thomson Reuters). The review process/reviewer Six reviewers independently assessed articles in 3 pairs (E.S., and A.M.B.; J.R.H., and N.A.B.L.; L.G.M and K.D.R.). The titles and abstracts (if available) were screened. Full-text copies for all potentially relevant articles were reviewed independently by at least 2 reviewers for inclusion and data collection. A third reviewer reconciled disagreements. Non-English articles had one reviewer, facilitated by language interpreters. For data extraction we used pre-made data entry sheets with details found in Supplementary Methods of the Supplement. Risk of bias For the complete methods of our risk of bias analysis, see eMethods. In short, all papers were analyzed for bias using A Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool: For Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI) [40]. Additionally, random effect Begg's funnel plot and Egger's linear regression were created to evaluate publication bias. Statistical analysis All analyses were conducted by using STATA statistical software, v 14 (Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were collected for each study and then combined using the random effect (Mantel-Haenszel) method. Summary hazards ratio estimates were provided for each subgroup and full collection of studies. Hazard ratios compared patients with a NLR lower than the cutoff with patients that had a NLR higher than the cutoff value. The NLR cutoff value was unique in each study. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q and I-squared statistics, calculated for each subgroup and for the full collection of studies. Forest plots were created to show primary and secondary endpoints. Meta regression was created to explore the heterogeneity between OS and NLR cutoff values. Wilcoxon rank sum test evaluated difference of NLR cutoff between subgroups. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS FIGURES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. ==== Refs REFERENCES 1 Zahorec R Ratio of neutrophil to lymphocyte counts—rapid and simple parameter of systemic inflammation and stress in critically ill. [Article in English, Slovak] Bratisl Lek Listy 2001 102 5 14 2 Mantovani A Allavena P Sica A Balkwill F Cancer-related inflammation Nature 2008 454 436 444 3 Hanahan D Weinberg RA Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation Cell 2011 144 646 674 4 Chiang SF Hung HY Tang R Changchien CR Chen JS You YT Chiang JM Lin JR Can neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predict the survival of colorectal cancer patients who have received curative surgery electively? Int J Colorectal Dis 2344-57-1325 1357 5 Goldstein D El-Maraghi RH Hammel P Heinemann V Kunzmann V Sastre J Scheithauer W Siena S Tabernero J Teixeira L Tortora G Van Laethem JL Young R nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: long-term survival from a phase III trial J Natl Cancer Inst 2015 6 Templeton AJ McNamara MG Seruga B Vera-Badillo FE Aneja P Ocana A Leibowitz-Amit R Sonpavde G Knox JJ Tran B Tannock IF Amir E Prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Natl Cancer Inst 2014 106 dju124 7 Cho S Cho H Nam A Kim HY Choi YS Park KH Cho DJ Lee BS Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as an adjunct to CA-125 for the diagnosis of endometriosis Fertil Steril 2344-57-1325 2079 8 Muhmmed Suliman MA Bahnacy Juma AA Ali Almadhani AA Pathare AV Alkindi SS Uwe Werner F. Predictive value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome Arch Med Res 2010 41 618 622 9 Kuyumcu ME Yesil Y Ozturk ZA Kizilarslanoglu C Etgul S Halil M Ulger Z Cankurtaran M Ariogul S The evaluation of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in Alzheimer's disease Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2012 34 69 74 10 McGary CT Miele ME Welch DR Highly metastatic 13762NF rat mammary adenocarcinoma cell clones stimulate bone marrow by secretion of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor/interleukin-3 activity Am J Pathol 1995 147 1668 1681 11 Li W Zhang X Chen Y Xie Y Liu J Feng Q Wang Y Yuan W Ma J G-CSF is a key modulator of MDSC and could be a potential therapeutic target in colitis-associated colorectal cancers Protein Cell 2016 7 130 140 12 Hashimoto T Ohno Y Nakashima J Gondo T Ohori M Tachibana M Clinical significance of preoperative peripheral blood neutrophil count in patients with non-metastatic upper urinary tract carcinoma World J Urol 2013 31 953 958 13 Shi Q Abbruzzese JL Huang S Fidler IJ Xiong Q Xie K Constitutive and inducible interleukin 8 expression by hypoxia and acidosis renders human pancreatic cancer cells more tumorigenic and metastatic Clin Cancer Res 1999 5 3711 3721 14 Fridlender ZG Sun J Kim S Kapoor V Cheng G Ling L Worthen GS Albelda SM Polarization of tumor-associated neutrophil phenotype by TGF-beta: "N1" versus "N2" TAN Cancer Cell 2009 16 183 194 15 van Zijl F Mair M Csiszar A Schneller D Zulehner G Huber H Eferl R Beug H Dolznig H Mikulits W Hepatic tumor-stroma crosstalk guides epithelial to mesenchymal transition at the tumor edge; Oncogene 2344-57-1325 4033 19718050 16 Hawinkels LJ Zuidwijk K Verspaget HW de Jonge-Muller ES van Duijn W Ferreira V Fontijn RD David G Hommes DW Lamers CB Sier CF VEGF release by MMP-9 mediated heparan sulphate cleavage induces colorectal cancer angiogenesis Eur J Cancer 2344-57-1325 1913 17 Knaapen AM Gungor N Schins RP Borm PJ Van Schooten FJ Neutrophils and respiratory tract DNA damage and mutagenesis: a review Mutagenesis 2006 21 225 236 18 He G Zhang H Zhou J Wang B Chen Y Kong Y Xie X Wang X Fei R Wei L Chen H Zeng H Peritumoural neutrophils negatively regulate adaptive immunity via the PD-L1/PD-1 signalling pathway in hepatocellular carcinoma J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2015 34 141 19 Sandel MH Dadabayev AR Menon AG Morreau H Melief CJ Offringa R van der Burg SH Janssen-van Rhijn CM Ensink NG Tollenaar RA van de Velde CJ Kuppen PJ Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating dendritic cells in colorectal cancer: role of maturation status and intratumoral localization Clin Cancer Res 2344-57-1325 2582 20 Schumacher K Haensch W Roefzaad C Schlag PM Prognostic significance of activated CD8(+) T cell infiltrations within esophageal carcinomas Cancer Res 2344-57-1325 3936 21 Zhang L Conejo-Garcia JR Katsaros D Gimotty PA Massobrio M Regnani G Makrigiannakis A Gray H Schlienger K Liebman MN Rubin SC Coukos G Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer N Engl J Med 2003 348 203 213 22 Brichard VG Lejeune D GSK's antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy programme pilot results leading to Phase III clinical development Vaccine 2007 25 Suppl 2 B61 71 17916463 23 Khong HT Restifo NP Natural selection of tumor variants in the generation of "tumor escape" phenotypes Nat Immunol 2002 3 999 1005 24 Huber C Bobek N Kuball J Thaler S Hoffarth S Theobald M Schuler M Inhibitors of apoptosis confer resistance to tumour suppression by adoptively transplanted cytotoxic T-lymphocytes in vitro and in vivo Cell Death Differ 2005 12 317 325 25 Catalan E Charni S Jaime P Aguilo JI Enriquez JA Naval J Pardo J Villalba M Anel A MHC-I modulation due to changes in tumor cell metabolism regulates tumor sensitivity to CTL and NK cells Oncoimmunology 2015 4 e985924 26 Mizukami Y Kono K Maruyama T Watanabe M Kawaguchi Y Kamimura K Fujii H Downregulation of HLA Class I molecules in the tumour is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma Br J Cancer 2344-57-1325 1467 27 Stewart CA Metheny H Iida N Smith L Hanson M Steinhagen F Leighty RM Roers A Karp CL Muller W Trinchieri G Interferon-dependent IL-10 production by Tregs limits tumor Th17 inflammation J Clin Invest 2013 123 4859 4874 28 Mariotto AB Yabroff KR Shao Y Feuer EJ Brown ML Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020 J Natl Cancer Inst 2011 103 117 128 29 Laudicella M Walsh B Burns E Smith PC Cost of care for cancer patients in England: evidence from population-based patient-level data Br J Cancer 2016 114 1286 1292 30 Kriza C Emmert M Wahlster P Niederlander C Kolominsky-Rabas P Cost of illness in colorectal cancer: an international review Pharmacoeconomics 2013 31 577 588 31 Li TY Hsieh JS Lee KT Hou MF Wu CL Kao HY Shi HY Cost trend analysis of initial cancer treatment in Taiwan PLoS One 2014 9 e108432 32 Wilmott JS Long GV Howle JR Haydu LE Sharma RN Thompson JF Kefford RF Hersey P Scolyer RA Selective BRAF inhibitors induce marked T-cell infiltration into human metastatic melanoma Clin Cancer Res 2344-57-1325 1394 33 Warren JL Yabroff KR Meekins A Topor M Lamont EB Brown ML Evaluation of trends in the cost of initial cancer treatment J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 100 888 897 34 Chalkidou K Marquez P Dhillon PK Teerawattananon Y Anothaisintawee T Gadelha CA Sullivan R Evidence-informed frameworks for cost-effective cancer care and prevention in low, middle, and high-income countries Lancet Oncol 2014 15 e119 131 35 Tamhane UU Aneja S Montgomery D Rogers EK Eagle KA Gurm HS Association between admission neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome Am J Cardiol 2008 102 653 657 36 Gary T Pichler M Belaj K Hafner F Gerger A Froehlich H Eller P Pilger E Brodmann M Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and its association with critical limb ischemia in PAOD patients PLoS One 2013 8 e56745 37 Azab B Daoud J Naeem FB Nasr R Ross J Ghimire P Siddiqui A Azzi N Rihana N Abdallah M Patel P Kleiner M El-Sayegh S Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of worsening renal function in diabetic patients (3-year follow-up study) Ren Fail 2012 34 571 576 38 Biyik M Ucar R Solak Y Gungor G Polat I Gaipov A Cakir OO Ataseven H Demir A Turk S Polat H Blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio independently predicts survival in patients with liver cirrhosis Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013 25 435 441 39 Stroup DF Berlin JA Morton SC Olkin I Williamson GD Rennie D Moher D Becker BJ Sipe TA Thacker SB Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Jama 2000 283 2008 2012 40 Sterne J Higgins J Reeves B A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI), Version 1.0.0 24 9 2014 Available from http://www.riskofbias.info [accessed July (647)677-4602 Halazun KJ Aldoori A Malik HZ Al-Mukhtar A Prasad KR Toogood GJ Lodge JP Elevated preoperative neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts survival following hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases Eur J Surg Oncol 2008 34 55 60 42 Halazun KJ Hardy MA Rana AA Woodland DC 4th Luyten EJ Mahadev S Witkowski P Siegel AB Brown RS Jr Emond JC Negative impact of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio on outcome after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma Ann Surg 2009 250 141 151 43 Kishi Y Kopetz S Chun YS Palavecino M Abdalla EK Vauthey JN Blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts survival in patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with systemic chemotherapy Ann Surg Oncol 2009 16 614 622 44 Neal CP Mann CD Sutton CD Garcea G Ong SL Steward WP Dennison AR Berry DP Evaluation of the prognostic value of systemic inflammation and socioeconomic deprivation in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases Eur J Cancer 2009 45 56 64 45 An X Ding PR Li YH Wang FH Shi YX Wang ZQ He YJ Xu RH Jiang WQ Elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts survival in advanced pancreatic cancer Biomarkers 2010 15 516 522 46 Ding PR An X Zhang RX Fang YJ Li LR Chen G Wu XJ Lu ZH Lin JZ Kong LH Wan DS Pan ZZ Elevated preoperative neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts risk of recurrence following curative resection for stage IIA colon cancer Int J Colorectal Dis 2344-57-1325 1433 47 Liu H Liu G Bao Q Sun W Bao H Bi L Wen W Liu Y Wang Z Yin X Bai Y Hu X The baseline ratio of neutrophils to lymphocytes is associated with patient prognosis in rectal carcinoma J Gastrointest Cancer 2010 41 116 120 48 Shimada H Takiguchi N Kainuma O Soda H Ikeda A Cho A Miyazaki A Gunji H Yamamoto H Nagata M High preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio predicts poor survival in patients with gastric cancer Gastric Cancer 2010 13 170 176 49 Ubukata H Motohashi G Tabuchi T Nagata H Konishi S Evaluations of interferon-gamma/interleukin-4 ratio and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio as prognostic indicators in gastric cancer patients J Surg Oncol 2010 102 742 747 50 Chua W Charles KA Baracos VE Clarke SJ Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio predicts chemotherapy outcomes in patients with advanced colorectal cancer Br J Cancer 2011 104 1288 1295 51 Huang ZL Luo J Chen MS Li JQ Shi M Blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011 22 702 709 52 Hung HY Chen JS Yeh CY Changchien CR Tang R Hsieh PS Tasi WS You JF You YT Fan CW Wang JY Chiang JM Effect of preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio on the surgical outcomes of stage II colon cancer patients who do not receive adjuvant chemotherapy Int J Colorectal Dis 2344-57-1325 1065 53 Jung MR Park YK Jeong O Seon JW Ryu SY Kim DY Kim YJ Elevated preoperative neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts poor survival following resection in late stage gastric cancer J Surg Oncol 2011 104 504 510 54 Miyata H Yamasaki M Kurokawa Y Takiguchi S Nakajima K Fujiwara Y Mori M Doki Y Prognostic value of an inflammation-based score in patients undergoing pre-operative chemotherapy followed by surgery for esophageal cancer Exp Ther Med 2011 2 879 885 55 Sharaiha RZ Halazun KJ Mirza F Port JL Lee PC Neugut AI Altorki NK Abrams JA Elevated preoperative neutrophil: lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of postoperative disease recurrence in esophageal cancer Ann Surg Oncol 2344-57-1325 3369 56 Wang GY Yang Y Li H Zhang J Jiang N Li MR Zhu HB Zhang Q Chen GH A scoring model based on neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts recurrence of HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation PLoS One 2011 6 e25295 57 Wang GY Yang Y Zhang Q Li H Chen GZ Yi SH Xu C Wang GS Zhang J Yi HM Jiang N Fu BS Zhao H Preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic predictor after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. [Article in Chinese] Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2344-57-1325 1522 58 Carruthers R Tho LM Brown J Kakumanu S McCartney E McDonald AC Systemic inflammatory response is a predictor of outcome in patients undergoing preoperative chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer Colorectal Dis 2012 14 e701 707 59 Chen TM Lin CC Huang PT Wen CF Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio associated with mortality in early hepatocellular carcinoma patients after radiofrequency ablation J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012 27 553 561 60 Jeong JH Lim SM Yun JY Rhee GW Lim JY Cho JY Kim YR Comparison of two inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer Oncology 2012 83 292 299 61 Kaneko M Nozawa H Sasaki K Hongo K Hiyoshi M Tada N Murono K Nirei T Kawai K Sunami E Tsuno
{'source': 'PubMedDataset'}