Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32451768›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical oncology2020

Prognostic value of preoperative hematologic biomarkers in urothelial carcinoma of the bladder treated with radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Keiichiro Mori, Noriyoshi Miura, Hadi Mostafaei, Fahad Quhal, Reza Sari Motlagh, Ivan Lysenko, Shoji Kimura, Shin Egawa, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Shahrokh F Shariat

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Keiichiro MoriDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6147-6569
Noriyoshi MiuraDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Hadi MostafaeiDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Fahad QuhalDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Reza Sari MotlaghDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Ivan LysenkoDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Shoji KimuraDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shin EgawaDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. shahrokh.shariat@meduriwien.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic value of preoperative hematologic biomarkers in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder treated with radical cystectomy. PUBMED, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched in September 2019 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared cancer-specific survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder with and without pretreatment laboratoryabnormalities. Formal meta-analyses were performed for this outcome. The systematic review identified 36 studies with 23,632 patients, of these, 32 studies with 22,224 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. Several preoperative hematologic biomarkers were significantly associated with cancer-specific survival as follows: neutrophil - lymphocyte ratio (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-1.29), hemoglobin (pooled HR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.82-0.94), C-reactive protein (pooled HR: 1.44, 95% CI 1.26-1.66), De Ritis ratio (pooled HR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.37-3.48), white blood cell count (pooled HR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.07), and albumin-globulin ratio (pooled HR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.48). Several pretreatment laboratory abnormalities in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder were associated with cancer-specific mortality. Therefore, it might be useful to incorporate such hematologic biomarkers into prognostic tools for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. However, given the study limitations including heterogeneity and retrospective nature of the primary data, the conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinCystectomyFemaleHumansLeukocyte CountLymphocytesMaleMiddle AgedNeutrophilsPlatelet CountPreoperative PeriodPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinHematologic biomarkerMeta-analysisUrothelial carcinoma of the bladder

Identifiers

PMID32451768
PMCPMC7392936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.