The prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein in metastatic colorectal cancer using regorafenib: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Original Article

The prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein in metastatic colorectal cancer using regorafenib: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nan Zhao1^, Huilin Xu2, Dingjie Zhou1^, Ximing Xu1, Wei Ge3, Dedong Cao1^

1Department of Oncology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; 2Department of Oncology, The Fifth Hospital of Wuhan, Wuhan, China; 3Department of Oncology, Taikang Tongji Wuhan Hospital, Wuhan, China

Contributions: (I) Conception and design: D Cao, H Xu; (II) Administrative support: D Cao; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: D Cao, N Zhao; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: N Zhao, D Zhou, H Xu; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: N Zhao, D Zhou, H Xu; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

^ORCID: Nan Zhao, 0000-0003-3981-8371; Dingjie Zhou, 0000-0001-5905-575X; Dedong Cao, 0000-0002-5777-4176.

Correspondence to: Dedong Cao. Department of Oncology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, #238 Jiefang Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan 430000, China. Email: caodedong123@163.com; Huilin Xu. Department of Oncology, The Fifth Hospital of Wuhan, #122 Xianzheng Road, Hanyang District, Wuhan 430000, China. Email: xhlcdd@163.com.

Background: The application of regorafenib has changed the landscape of subsequent-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), as two of the most common inflammatory factors, are suggested to be potential prognostic factors for mCRC patients treated with regorafenib, but the results are conflicting. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic role of NLR and CRP in mCRC patients treated with regorafenib.

Methods: We searched online databases such as Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane library up to April 2022, without language limitation, to identify clinical studies evaluating the prognostic role of NLR or CRP in regorafenib treated mCRC patients. The main endpoints were hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The associations between NLR, CRP, and the above endpoints were extracted. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct the combined analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied for assessing the quality of included studies. Heterogeneity was detected by chi-square-based Q test and I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot asymmetry and Egger’s test.

Results: Eight studies involving 1,287 cases were included, with 5 reporting survival outcomes based on NLR level and 4 reporting survival according to CRP level. The results of meta-analysis showed that the calculated HR of OS for subsequent-line regorafenib in mCRC patients with high versus low NLR was 2.52 [I2=52%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.75–3.64; P<0.00001]. The combined HR of PFS with high versus low baseline NLR was 2.11 (I2=12%, 95% CI: 1.80–2.48; P<0.00001). For patients with a high level of CRP, the OS was significantly shorter when compared with patients with a low level of CRP (I2=0%, HR =1.88; 95% CI: 1.55–2.29; P<0.00001).

Conclusions: High level of NLR could be associated with OS in mCRC patients treated with regorafenib. It is suggested that the impact of regorafenib on OS may vary according to the baseline NLR.

Keywords: Regorafenib; colorectal cancer (CRC); neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR); C-reactive protein (CRP); biomarker

Submitted Jun 20, 2022. Accepted for publication Aug 16, 2022.

doi: 10.21037/jgo-22-683

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common colorectal malignancies. The incidence of CRC is increasing yearly (1), and it has poor survival outcomes (2). Currently, the main treatment strategy for CRC is surgery (3-6) with curative intention. However, due to the insidious symptoms of CRC, around 20% of patients are diagnosed with distant metastases, thus losing the opportunity to undergo complete resection of localized disease and/or distant metastases (7). Even for patients who receive surgical resection, it is reported that almost half will present with metastases (7,8).

Currently, the most common treatment regimen for CRC patients with distant metastases is fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy combined with anti-vascular targeted therapy (9). Although the short-term outcomes are satisfactory, most patients will develop resistance (10). Regorafenib, a new targeted agent, has shown acceptable toxicity and remarkable efficacy in metastatic CRC (mCRC) patients who are resistant to fluorouracil combined with platinum or irinotecan treatments (11-14). Thus, in recent years, regorafenib has been approved for clinical application in mCRC patients in China (12,15). With increasing clinical use of regorafenib, determining potential biomarkers to assist with effective application of regorafenib in these patients is needed.

A number of retrospective studies focusing on the identification of predictors of regorafenib efficacy have been undertaken (16-20). As previously reported, numerous factors affect tumor prognosis, tumorigenesis, and progression, and inflammatory response plays a vital role in these processes (21,22). Various inflammatory cells and inflammatory factors play different roles in tumor progression (22). Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are factors associated with inflammation. Previous studies have reported that baseline NRL and CRP are potential prognostic factors for long-term prognosis of patients with solid cancers (23-26). However, their prognostic values are controversial. A study by Marshall et al. evaluated the clinical factors which predict prognosis in HER2-positive gastric cancer who received trastuzumab based chemotherapy (27). The results showed that NLR [hazard ratio (HR) =0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29–1.06, P=0.074] was not significant (27). Other studies also suggested a non-significant connection between NLR and overall survival (OS) (28), and CRP and OS (29). It is also not well determined whether NLR (30) or CRP could serve as prognostic factors in mCRC patients treated with regorafenib. In 2015, a study by Del Prete et al. assessed the impact on survival of NLR in mCRC patients receiving regorafenib monotherapy (31). They reported that high NLR was related to worse OS (HR =1.70, 95% CI: 1.08–2.68, P=0.024) (31). Later, other studies found similar results in these patients (14,32). However, the study by Watanabe et al. found that NLR was not significantly associated with OS (30). One of the major reasons for this conflicting finding may be the sample size. In addition, there is no meta-analysis-based evidence to assess the prognostic role of NLR or CRP in regorafenib treated mCRC patients. Therefore, in this study, we employed meta-analysis to investigate the value of baseline NLR and CRP in long-term prognosis of patients with mCRC. We present the following article in accordance with the MOOSE reporting checklist (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-22-683/rc).

Methods

We searched Chinese and English-language databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure for relevant studies published up to April 2022. The main search terms were: colorectal carcinoma, NLR, CRP, and regorafenib. To ensure potential studies were not omitted, reference lists of the included articles were searched manually and relevant reviews were further screened.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

Patient: patients with pathologically confirmed CRC, and were diagnosed with metastatic disease by tumor/node/metastasis (TNM) staging method. Treatments: patients received regorafenib treatment. Comparisons: baseline NLR or CRP values were presented, and survival benefits of these patients were compared based on NLR or CRP levels. Outcomes: OS and/or progression-free survival (PFS) were reported as the outcome indicators. HR and its 95% CI of OS and/or PFS based on NLR or CRP were reported. There were adequate criteria for defining high and low NLR and CRP in the included studies. Study types were not only limited to cohort or case-control studies, but also other types were included if they met the above criteria.

Exclusion criteria

(I) Reviews, animal cell experiments, conference abstracts that could not provide sufficient information for inclusion, and articles without the full text available; (II) patients did not receive regorafenib treatment; and (III) multiple reports from the same clinical trial and regarded as the same study.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data. When there was a disagreement, consensus was reached by discussion. The following information was extracted from the final included studies: first author, publication time, region, study type, treatment modality, sample size, general information of patients, NLR and its cutoff value, CRP and its cutoff value, OS, PFS, and HR of OS and PFS based on NLR and CRP. For study reporting survival outcomes of patients with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib treatments, only the regorafenib related data was extracted.

No included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For non-RCT studies, the risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) (33). Out of a maximum possible score of 9, the NOS scores of 7 or higher were considered as high-quality studies. The main limitations lowering the overall quality of the included studies were two aspects: loss to follow-up rate and comparable on confounders.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software. HR and 95% CI were obtained from the included studies, and HR values were combined using the Mantel-Haenszel method. HR >1 indicated that NLR was associated with poor prognosis in mCRC. The HR values from the multiple Cox regression analysis were preferred and used as the first option. The data from univariate analysis was also in an additional analysis if sufficient. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, with I2≥50% and P<0.1 indicating significant heterogeneity between studies, in which case the random-effects model was used. Otherwise, a fixed-effect model was used. Funnel plot analysis and Egger’s test were used to assess risk of publication bias. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed if the heterogeneity caused by baseline characteristics was significant. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Literature search results and quality evaluation

A total of 244 articles were retrieved by searching the above databases, and 3 articles were retrieved by manual search of citations, including 216 studies in English and 31 in Chinese. A total of 125 duplicate reports were excluded by Endnote software, and a further 73 articles were excluded after reading the title and abstract. A further 41 articles were excluded after checking the full text. The 3 references retrieved by citation were excluded because they were all from the same clinical trial and did not report detailed data on outcome indicators. Finally, 8 studies (14,30,31,34-38) with a total of 1,287 patients were included in the meta-analysis (Table 1). The NOS scores of the included studies were all ≥7 (Table 2), indicating that the quality of the studies was good. The study selection process is presented in Figure 1. reported the relationship between CRP and OS. The included studies used the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis or upper normal level to determine cut-off values for NLR and CRP. Patients received regorafenib monotherapy, regorafenib in combination with chemotherapy, and regorafenib plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (Table 1).

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of included studies

Author Year Study type Number Region Sex (male) Age (years) Cancer details Treatment strategy Treatment details Line of treatment NLR cutoff value CRP cutoff value (mg/L) Outcomes
Del Prete M 2015 Retrospective 208 Europe 103 (50%) 61 Pretreated colorectal cancer Regorafenib Regorafenib monotherapy, 160 mg/d ≥2 0.381 NR OS, PFS, ORR, DCR, prognostic factors
Moriwaki T 2018 Retrospective 212 Asia 323 (59%) 64 Metastatic colorectal cancer Regorafenib versus trifluridine/tipiracil Regorafenib ≥2 NR NR OS, PFS, ORR, DCR, prognostic factors
Moriwaki T 2020 Retrospective 489 Asia 291 (60%) 64 Metastatic colorectal cancer Regorafenib versus trifluridine/tipiracil Regorafenib ≥2 NR 1 OS, prognostic factors
Chida K 2021 Retrospective 550 Asia 323 (59%) 64 Metastatic colorectal cancer Regorafenib versus trifluridine/tipiracil Regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil ≥2 NR 1 OS, prognostic factors
Su YL 2021 Retrospective 356 Asia 210 (59%) 60 Metastatic colorectal cancer Regorafenib Regorafenib monotherapy, 160 mg/d ≥2 4 NR OS, prognostic factors
Watanabe D 2021 Retrospective 60 Asia 34 (57%) 66 Metastatic colorectal cancer Later‑line chemotherapy with regorafenib Later‑line chemotherapy with regorafenib ≥2 NA NA OS, PFS, ORR, DCR, safety, prognostic factors
Yang K 2022 Retrospective 48 Asia 50 (60%) 63 Advanced or metastatic microsatellite stable colorectal cancer Regorafenib combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors Regorafenib combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors ≥2 2 NR OS, PFS, ORR, DCR, safety, prognostic factors
Erdoğan AP 2022 Retrospective 65 Europe 34 (52%) NR Metastatic colorectal cancer Regorafenib Regorafenib ≥2 5.87 5 OS, PFS, prognostic factors

NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; CRP, C-reactive protein; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; ORR, objective response rate; DCR, disease control rate; NR, not reported; NA, not applicable.

Table 2

Quality assessment of included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

Author Year Selection Comparability Outcome Score
A B C D E F G H
Del Prete M 2015 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ – 7
Moriwaki T 2018 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 9
Moriwaki T 2020 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 9
Chida K 2021 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 9
Su YL 2021 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 8
Watanabe D 2021 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 8
Yang K 2022 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 8
Erdoğan AP 2022 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ 8

“Selection” includes: A, representativeness of cases; B, selection of controls; C, exposure ascertainment; D, no death when investigation began. “Comparability” includes: E, comparable on confounders. “Outcome” includes: F, outcome assessment; G, adequate follow-up; H, loss to follow-up rate. The total score is equal to the total number of stars.

Figure 1 Flow chart of the systematic search and study selection process.

Meta-analysis results

NLR and survival

Five studies reported the association of NLR and OS benefit in mCRC patients after regorafenib treatment, and only 3 studies presented the HR of OS based on NLR. The study of Watanabe et al. reported the result based on continuous variable, and was not included in the analysis (30). As reported in their study, the HR was less than one without statistically significance (HR =0.99, P=0.80) (30). For the rest studies, there was significant heterogeneity between the included studies (I2=52%, P=0.15), and a random-effect model was used (Figure 2A). Meta-analysis result based on univariate analyses showed that the high baseline NLR group was associated with poor OS in mCRC (HR =2.52, 95% CI: 1.75–3.64, P<0.00001).

Figure 2 Association between baseline NLR and survival outcomes in mCRC patients treated with regorafenib. (A) The association between OS and NLR based on univariate analysis. (B) The association between PFS and NLR based on univariate analysis. (C) The association between PFS and NLR based on multivariate analysis. CI, confidence interval; mCRC, metastatic colorectal cancer; NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; SE, standard error.

The impact of NLR on PFS in mCRC patients treated with regorafenib was assessed in 4 studies. As indicated by the heterogeneity test, the risk of heterogeneity was considered low (I2=12%, P=0.32 for pooled HR under univariate analysis; I2=0%, P=0.38 for pooled HR under multivariate analysis), and thus the fixed-effect model was applied (Figure 2B,2C). The combined results showed that patients with high NLR were at a higher risk of disease progression compared to those with low NLR (univariate analysis: HR =2.11, 95% CI: 1.80–2.48, P<0.01; multivariate analysis: HR =1.84, 95% CI: 1.28–2.63, P=0.0009).

CRP and survival

Only 3 studies reported data about the relationship between CRP level and survival in mCRC patients with a treatment history of regorafenib. As there was a study (30) analyzed the impact of continuous CRP on OS, we separately presented the result. A negative association (HR =1.22, P=0.0001) between OS and CRP was observed (30). For the other two studies, the heterogeneity test found that there was significant heterogeneity between the included studies (I2=0%, P=0.72), and a fixed-effects model was used (Figure 3). Meta-analysis results showed that the OS of the high CRP group was shorter than that of the low CRP group (HR =1.88, 95% CI: 1.55–2.29, P<0.00001).

Figure 3 Association between baseline CRP and OS in mCRC patients treated with regorafenib. CI, confidence interval; CRP, C-reactive protein; mCRC, metastatic colorectal cancer; OS, overall survival; SE, standard error.

Subgroup analysis

For PFS and NLR, we performed a subgroup analysis according to treatment (Figure 2B,2C). The results showed that for patients treated with regorafenib, high baseline NLR was associated with higher risk of progression (univariate analysis: HR =2.08, 95% CI: 1.77–2.45, P<0.00001; multivariate analysis: HR =1.73, 95% CI: 1.18–2.54, P=0.005). For patients treated with regorafenib plus immunotherapy regimen, the high NLR group had an increased risk of progression compared with those with low NLR (univariate analysis: HR =3.43, 95% CI: 1.24–9.49, P=0.02; multivariate analysis: HR =2.83, 95% CI: 1.00–7.98, P=0.05).

Publication bias

Funnel plot analysis was used to assess publication bias for OS and PFS. The funnel plots of the included studies showed an asymmetric distribution, indicating low risk of publication bias (Figure 4). Furthermore, we did the Egger’s test and Begg’s test to evaluate the publication bias, and the results showed negative findings (Begg’s test for OS, P=0.32; Egger’s test for PFS, P=0.95).

Figure 4 Funnel plot analysis for detecting publication bias. SE, standard error; ICIs, immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Discussion

In recent years, regorafenib has been an important option for the treatment of mCRC, but little is known about potential predictors of regorafenib efficacy. In the present study, we assessed the prognostic value of baseline NLR and CRP in patients with mCRC treated with regorafenib. The results showed that a high level of NLR at baseline was associated with poor OS and PFS. Elevated CRP at baseline was also associated with poor OS. Further subgroup analysis also showed that the predictive effect of NLR was independent of treatment regimen.

NLR has been shown to be predictive of efficacy in a variety of solid tumors receiving different treatment modalities (39). High NLR is usually associated with poor prognosis (39). The findings in this study were consistent with these results. However, there is still disagreement over how the threshold value of NLR is defined. Common methods of obtaining cut-off values include the use of median values and the use of subject workup curves for diagnostic experiments. In this study, the value of NLR was obtained at baseline, but the cut-off values for NLR varied among studies, which may have influenced the predictive value of NLR.

In terms of CRP in evaluating the prognosis of cancer patients undergoing antitumor treatments, several studies have found similar findings (40,41). One meta-analysis investigating the relationship between CRP and prognosis in cancer patients found that increased serum CRP level was associated with 1.48 times the risk of death (42). Another study evaluated the relationship between CRP and postoperative prognosis in 470 gastric cancer patients (43). The study assessed the association between postoperative CRP levels and gastric cancer survival, with the results showing that the mortality rate from relapse of cancer in the high postoperative CRP group was significantly higher than that of the group with low postoperative CRP. Our study showed that increased CRP was correlated with worse OS in patients with mCRC, and patients with low CRP who received regorafenib had a better survival benefit than those with high CRP. However, the optimal cut-off value of this biomarker was also varied across studies. How the cut-off value is obtained remains an important issue and limits the clinical application of these factors.

The included studies in this study were considered high-quality, were comparable in terms of patient age and performance status scores, and had good coherence in terms of outcome indicators, resulting in a low risk of bias. However, this meta-analysis included only 8 studies, which may have influenced our results. The limitations of this study were as follows: (I) the included studies were retrospective and the quantity was limited, which may have introduced bias; (II) differences in previous treatment history may have been the main factor contributing to the heterogeneity of the CRP analysis; (III) although baseline NLR and CRP were obtained, the cut-off values were not consistent across studies. Therefore, more well-designed studies are needed to validate these findings.

In conclusion, NLR and CRP may be potential prognostic indicators for evaluating efficacy of regorafenib in mCRC patients, with the advantage that they are cheap and feasible. It is suggested that the impact of regorafenib on OS may vary according to the baseline NLR.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the MOOSE reporting checklist. Available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-22-683/rc

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-22-683/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Nordlinger B, et al. Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2014;25:iii1-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Schmoll HJ, Van Cutsem E, Stein A, et al. ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. a personalized approach to clinical decision making. Ann Oncol 2012;23:2479-516. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2016;27:1386-422. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Yoshino T, Arnold D, Taniguchi H, et al. Pan-Asian adapted ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KACO, MOS, SSO and TOS. Ann Oncol 2018;29:44-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Filip S, Vymetalkova V, Petera J, et al. Distant Metastasis in Colorectal Cancer Patients-Do We Have New Predicting Clinicopathological and Molecular Biomarkers? A Comprehensive Review. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:5255. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Bozzetti F, Doci R, Bignami P, et al. Patterns of failure following surgical resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases: rationale for a multimodal approach. Recent Results Cancer Res 1988;110:164-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Ku G, Tan IB, Yau T, et al. Management of colon cancer: resource-stratified guidelines from the Asian Oncology Summit 2012. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e470-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Hammond WA, Swaika A, Mody K. Pharmacologic resistance in colorectal cancer: a review. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2016;8:57-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Aljubran AH, Zahir M, Gad A, Al-Dalee A, Bazarbashi S, Elshenawy MA, et al. Outcome of use of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer in routine clinic practice in Saudi Arabia. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:e15021. [Crossref]
  12. Jing Z, Rui Z, Binglan Z. A comparison of regorafenib and fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2019;145:2313-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Liu Y, Lyu J, Bell Burdett K, et al. Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Regorafenib. Mol Cancer Ther 2020;19:2146-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Su YL, Tsai KL, Chiu TJ, et al. Development and Validation of a Novel Serum Prognostic Marker for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer on Regorafenib Treatment. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:5080. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Wilhelm SM, Dumas J, Adnane L, et al. Regorafenib (BAY 73-4506): a new oral multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic, stromal and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases with potent preclinical antitumor activity. Int J Cancer 2011;129:245-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Amatu A, Schirripa M, Tosi F, et al. High Circulating Methylated DNA Is a Negative Predictive and Prognostic Marker in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated With Regorafenib. Front Oncol 2019;9:622. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Antoniotti C, Marmorino F, Boccaccino A, et al. Prospective validation of Ang-2 and Tie-2 plasma levels as predictors of benefit from regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: REGOLAND study. Ann Oncol 2021;32:S211. [Crossref]
  18. Antoniotti C, Marmorino F, Boccaccino A, et al. Early modulation of Angiopoietin-2 plasma levels predicts benefit from regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2022;165:116-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Antoniotti C, Marmorino F, Pennati M, et al. Circulating angiogenesis-related markers as predictors of benefit from regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (PTS). J Clin Oncol 2018;36:abstr 675.
  20. Bazarbashi MS, Elshenawy MA, Kandil MS, et al. Efficacy of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer: A multi-institutional retrospective study. Ann Oncol 2018;29:abstr 112P.
  21. Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, et al. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 2008;454:436-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Diakos CI, Charles KA, McMillan DC, et al. Cancer-related inflammation and treatment effectiveness. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:e493-503. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. Riedl JM, Posch F, Moik F, et al. Inflammatory biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer: prognostic and predictive role beyond the first line setting. Oncotarget 2017;8:96048-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Shrotriya S, Walsh D, Bennani-Baiti N, et al. C-Reactive Protein Is an Important Biomarker for Prognosis Tumor Recurrence and Treatment Response in Adult Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review. PLoS One 2015;10:e0143080. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Stotz M, Pichler M, Absenger G, et al. The preoperative lymphocyte to monocyte ratio predicts clinical outcome in patients with stage III colon cancer. Br J Cancer 2014;110:435-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. Absenger G, Szkandera J, Pichler M, et al. A derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts clinical outcome in stage II and III colon cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2013;109:395-400. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Marshall S, Wakatsuki T, Matsushima T, et al. Prognostic factors of trastuzumab-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced HER2 positive gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:abstr 41.
  28. Namikawa T, Ishida N, Tsuda S, et al. Prognostic significance of serum alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase levels in patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2019;22:684-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Shoji F, Takeoka H, Kozuma Y, et al. Pretreatment prognostic nutritional index as a novel biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Lung Cancer 2019;136:45-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  30. Watanabe D, Fujii H, Yamada Y, et al. Association of albumin-bilirubin score in patients with colorectal cancer receiving later-line chemotherapy with regorafenib. Int J Clin Oncol 2021;26:1257-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  31. Del Prete M, Giampieri R, Loupakis F, et al. Prognostic clinical factors in pretreated colorectal cancer patients receiving regorafenib: implications for clinical management. Oncotarget 2015;6:33982-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  32. Harada K, Kawakami T, Masuishi T, et al. P4-10 The impact of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) on overall survival for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2021;32:S332. [Crossref]
  33. Lo CK, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  34. Moriwaki T, Fukuoka S, Taniguchi H, et al. Propensity Score Analysis of Regorafenib Versus Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapy (REGOTAS): A Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Multicenter Observational Study. Oncologist 2018;23:7-15. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  35. Moriwaki T, Fukuoka S, Masuishi T, et al. Prognostic scores for evaluating the survival benefit of regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: an exploratory analysis of the REGOTAS study. Int J Clin Oncol 2020;25:614-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  36. Chida K, Kotani D, Moriwaki T, et al. Survival Benefit of Crossover Administration of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil Hydrochloride for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Exploratory Analysis of a Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Multicenter Observational Study (REGOTAS). Front Oncol 2021;11:576036. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  37. Yang K, Han L, Wu S, et al. Real-world outcomes of regorafenib combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced or metastatic microsatellite stable colorectal cancer: A multicenter study. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2022;71:1443-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  38. Erdoğan AP, Ekinci F, Karabaş A, et al. Could the Inflammatory Prognostic Index Predict the Efficacy of Regorafenib in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? J Gastrointest Cancer 2022;53:45-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  39. Karki R, Man SM, Kanneganti TD. Inflammasomes and Cancer. Cancer Immunol Res 2017;5:94-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  40. Fogelman D, Cubillo A, García-Alfonso P, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase two study of ruxolitinib plus regorafenib in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Med 2018;7:5382-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  41. Grell P, Borilova S, Schwanzerova R, et al. Factors associated with effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil versus regorafenib in patients with pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). J Clin Oncol 2020;38:abstr 137.
  42. Han CL, Meng GX, Ding ZN, et al. The Predictive Potential of the Baseline C-Reactive Protein Levels for the Efficiency of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Immunol 2022;13:827788. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  43. Migita K, Matsumoto S, Wakatsuki K, et al. Postoperative Serum C-Reactive Protein Level Predicts Long-term Outcomes in Stage I Gastric Cancer. J Surg Res 2019;242:323-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]

(English Language Editor: A. Muylwyk)

Cite this article as: Zhao N, Xu H, Zhou D, Xu X, Ge W, Cao D. The prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein in metastatic colorectal cancer using regorafenib: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Oncol 2022;13(4):1772-1781. doi: 10.21037/jgo-22-683

Article Options

Download Citation

Share