PurposeA meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in patients undergoing potentially curative gastrectomy for cancer (GC).MethodsThomson Reuters Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and PUBMED databases were searched for relevant articles using search terms neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), GC and survival. Articles reporting overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival and disease-free survival (DFS), in patients undergoing R0 gastrectomy, were studied.ResultsArticles numbering 365 were identified during the preliminary search, and 10 containing 4164 patients were included in the final review. Most patients were > 60 years of age, male (67%) and 2239 (53.8%) had pT3 disease. The number of NLR dichotomization thresholds reported numbered 7, with 2.00 and 3.00 (n = 2) the most common. NLR was associated with poor survival in eight studies with hazard ratios ranging from 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26–1.89) to 2.99 (1.99–4.49). Pooled odds ratio (OR) for OS was 2.31 (1.40–3.83, p = 0.001) and for DFS 2.72 (1.14–6.54, p = 0.020). Four studies presented T-stage data, OR 1.62 (1.33–1.96, p < 0.001).ConclusionNLR is an important prognostic indicator associated with both OS and DFS after R0 resection of GC, but the critical level is equivocal.

No abstract

ObjectivesPrespecified progression criteria can inform the decision to progress from an external randomised pilot trial to a definitive randomised controlled trial. We assessed the characteristics of progression criteria reported in external randomised pilot trial protocols and results publications, including whether progression criteria were specified a priori and mentioned in prepublication peer reviewer reports.Study designMethodological review.MethodsWe searched four journals through PubMed: British Medical Journal Open, Pilot and Feasibility Studies, Trials and Public Library of Science One. Eligible publications reported external randomised pilot trial protocols or results, were published between January 2018 and December 2019 and reported progression criteria. We double data extracted 25% of the included publications. Here we report the progression criteria characteristics.ResultsWe included 160 publications (123 protocols and 37 completed trials). Recruitment and retention were the most frequent indicators contributing to progression criteria. Progression criteria were mostly reported as distinct thresholds (eg, achieving a specific target; 133/160, 83%). Less than a third of the planned and completed pilot trials that included qualitative research reported how these findings would contribute towards progression criteria (34/108, 31%). The publications seldom stated who established the progression criteria (12/160, 7.5%) or provided rationale or justification for progression criteria (44/160, 28%). Most completed pilot trials reported the intention to proceed to a definitive trial (30/37, 81%), but less than half strictly met all of their progression criteria (17/37, 46%). Prepublication peer reviewer reports were available for 153/160 publications (96%). Peer reviewer reports for 86/153 (56%) publications mentioned progression criteria, with peer reviewers of 35 publications commenting that progression criteria appeared not to be specified.ConclusionsMany external randomised pilot trial publications did not adequately report or propose prespecified progression criteria to inform whether to proceed to a future definitive randomised controlled trial.