The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Cluster-Randomized Trial to Increase Hepatitis B Testing among Koreans in Los Angeles
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammation influences cancer development and progression. An elevated platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), a marker of inflammation, has been linked to poor prognosis in several malignancies. Here, we quantify the prognostic impact of this biomarker. METHODS: A systematic review of databases was conducted to identify publications exploring the association of blood PLR and overall survival (OS) in solid tumors. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Pooled HRs for OS by disease group and by PLR cutoff groups were computed and weighted using generic inverse-variance and random-effect modeling. RESULTS: Twenty studies comprising 12,754 patients were assessed. Cutoffs for PLR defining risk groups ranged from 150 to 300 and were dichotomous (12 studies; group 1) or split into three groups (300, 8 studies; group 2). Higher PLR was associated with significantly worse OS in group 1 [HR = 1.87; 95% confidence interval (CI, 1.49-2.34); P <0.001] and with a nonsignificant association in group 2 (HR per higher category = 1.21; 95%CI, 0.97-1.50; P = 0.10). The size of effect of PLR on OS was greater for metastatic disease (HR[group 1] = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.7; HR[group 2] = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4) than for early-stage disease (HR[group 1] = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; HR[group 2] = 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3). A significant association was observed for colorectal, hepatocellular, gastroesophageal, ovarian, and pancreatic carcinoma in group 1 and for colorectal cancers in group 2. CONCLUSION: A high PLR is associated with worse OS in various solid tumors. Further research of its regulation and relevance in daily practice is warranted. IMPACT: PLR is a readily available and inexpensive biomarker with independent prognostic value in solid tumors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Batty, G. D., Russ, T. C., Stamatakis, E., & Kivimäki, M. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j108 · Cited by 377
Systemic Inflammation Predicts All-Cause Mortality: A Glasgow Inflammation Outcome Study
Proctor, M. J., McMillan, D. C., Horgan, P. G., Fletcher, C. D., Talwar, D., & Morrison, D. S. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116206 · Cited by 168
The epigenetic alterations of endogenous retroelements in aging
Cardelli, M. (2018) · Mechanisms of Ageing and Development · doi:10.1016/j.mad.2018.02.002 · Cited by 91
Gaber, C., Meza, R., Ruterbusch, J. J., & Cote, M. L. (2017) · Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities · doi:10.1007/s40615-016-0292-2 · Cited by 66
Knobf, M. T., Jeon, S., Smith, B., Harris, L., Thompson, S., Stacy, M. R., Insogna, K., & Sinusas, A. J. (2017) · Heart & Lung · doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2017.06.001 · Cited by 26
Early adulthood body mass index, cumulative smoking, and esophageal adenocarcinoma survival
Spreafico, A., Coate, L., Zhai, R., Xu, W., Chen, Z.-F., Chen, Z., Patel, D., Tse, B., Brown, M. C., Heist, R. S., et al. (2017) · Cancer Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.canep.2016.11.009 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Bastani, R., Glenn, B. A., & Maxwell, A. E.
- Venue
- eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania)
- Publisher
- University of Tasmania
- Published
- 2015-06-23
- OpenAlex
- W2481801577
- Cited by
- 901
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.