Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Prognostic value of pretreatment lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in patients with glioma: a meta-analysis

BMC Medicine volume 21, Article number: 486 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Many studies have explored the prognostic role of the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) in patients with glioma, but the results have been inconsistent. We therefore conducted the current meta-analysis to identify the accurate prognostic effect of LMR in glioma.

Methods

The electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were thoroughly searched from inception to July 25, 2023. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the prognostic role of LMR for glioma.

Results

A total of 16 studies comprising 3,407 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A low LMR was significantly associated with worse overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.13–1.61, p = 0.001) in glioma. However, there was no significant correlation between LMR and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.75–1.91, p = 0.442) in glioma patients. Subgroup analysis indicated that a low LMR was significantly associated with inferior OS and PFS in glioma when using a cutoff value of ≤ 3.7 or when patients received mixed treatment.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrated that a low LMR was significantly associated with poor OS in glioma. There was no significant correlation between LMR and PFS in glioma patients. The LMR could be a promising and cost-effective prognostic biomarker in patients with glioma in clinical practice.

Peer Review reports

Background

Glioma is the most common primary malignant brain tumor, accounting for approximately 27% of all brain and central nervous system tumor [1, 2]. As gliomas are highly heterogeneous and proliferate invasively, therapeutic approaches can be challenging [3]. According to the latest 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) Central Nervous System (CNS) 5 classification [4, 5], adult-type diffuse gliomas are classified into 3 types: (1) astrocytoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant (WHO grades 2–4); (2) oligodendroglioma, IDH mutant and 1p/19q codeleted (WHO grades 2 and 3); and (3) glioblastoma (GBM), IDH wild type (WHO grade 4) [5]. GBM is the most common and aggressive type of primary brain tumor, which comprises up to 50% of all gliomas [6]. The survival outcomes of patients with glioma have not improved over the past several decades, despite treatment options, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The prognosis of GBM is poor, with a median overall survival (OS) of 15 months and a 5-year survival rate of only approximately 5% [7, 8]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify novel and effective prognostic markers for glioma.

Evidence suggests that the tumor microenvironment, notably the inflammatory response, may promote cancer development and progression and is associated with systemic inflammation [9]. A number of hematological indicators have been reported to be highly predictive of cancer patient prognosis in recent years, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) [10], platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) [11], systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) [12], and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) [13]. For example, a review involving 11 studies showed that PLR could be a useful marker to aid in the prognosis of GBM [14]. Another important systematic review indicated that the NLR was a cost-effective and low-cost tool that was associated with tumor grading and overall survival (OS) in patients with glioma [15]. The LMR is derived by dividing the absolute lymphocyte count by the absolute monocyte count. Many studies have reported that LMR is a significant prognostic marker for various solid tumors, including thyroid cancer [16], renal cell carcinoma [17], small cell lung cancer [18], ovarian cancer [19], and cholangiocarcinoma [20]. Previous studies have also explored the prognostic effect of LMR in patients with glioma, but the results were controversial [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. For example, some researchers reported that a low LMR was significantly associated with poor survival in glioma [30, 31, 34, 35]. However, some other clinicians showed that there was no significant correlation between LMR and the prognosis of glioma patients [22,23,24, 27]. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to identify the precise prognostic function of LMR in glioma.

Methods

Study guidelines

This meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [37].

Ethics statement

In our study, no human or animal experiments were conducted, and no primary personal information will be gathered. Therefore, no ethical approval or consent was needed.

Search strategy

The electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were thoroughly searched from inception to July 25, 2023. The detailed search strategy was as follows: (LMR or lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio or lymphocyte-monocyte ratio or lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio) and (glioma or glioblastoma or glial tumor or astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma). Only publications in English were considered. Furthermore, references cited in these studies were also reviewed to identify additional published articles not indexed in the standard databases.

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the diagnosis of glioma was pathologically or histologically confirmed; (2) the association between LMR and survival outcomes in glioma was investigated; (3) the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for survival outcomes were reported or could be calculated by given information; (4) a cutoff value to define low and high LMR was identified; and (5) the study was published in the English language. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) case reports, reviews, letters, conference abstracts, and comments; (2) animal studies; and (3) studies with overlapping patients.

Data extraction

Two investigators (Y.W. and C.X.) independently reviewed the eligible studies and extracted data from the included studies. All disagreements were resolved by discussion until consensus. The following information was extracted: first author’s name, year of publication, country, study period, sample size, age, sex, WHO grade, histology, treatment, cutoff value, methods to determine cutoff value, follow-up, survival outcomes, survival analysis type, and HRs with 95% CIs. The primary survival endpoint was OS, and the secondary survival endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

Quality assessment

The Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of each selected study by two independent reviewers (C.X. and Z.Z.) [38]. The NOS assesses the quality of studies in the following aspects: selection (4 points), comparability (2 points), and results and adequacy of follow-up (3 points). The NOS score ranges from 0 to 9, and studies with NOS scores ≥ 6 are considered high-quality.

Statistical analysis

The pooled HRs and 95% CIs were calculated to estimate the prognostic role of LMR for glioma patients. The heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by using Cochran’s Q test and Higgins I2 statistic. A random-effects model was applied when significant heterogeneity was observed, as measured by an I2 greater than 50% or a P value less than 0.1. Otherwise, a fixed-effects model was adopted. Subgroup analysis stratified by diverse factors and meta-regression analysis were conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the stability of the combined results. Begg’s test and Egger’s test were used to assess publication bias. Stata software version 12.0 was used to conduct all statistical analyses (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). P values < 0.05 were defined as statistically significant.

Results

Search results

As shown in Fig. 1, the initial literature search identified a total of 174 records, and 100 studies remained after the removal of duplicates. Through screening titles and abstracts, 61 studies were further discarded because they were irrelevant studies or animal experiments. Subsequently, the remaining 39 studies were examined by full-text reading. Then, 23 studies were eliminated for the following reasons: no survival data provided (n = 12), not concerning LMR (n = 7), and not concerning glioma (n = 4). Ultimately, a total of 16 studies comprising 3407 patients [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] were included in this meta-analysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart of literature search and study selection

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies

The baseline characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. They were published from 2016 to 2023. The sample sizes ranged from 22 to 592, and the median value was 193. Thirteen studies were performed in China [21,22,23,24,25, 27, 29,30,31,32,33, 35, 36], and one each in Australia [26], India [28], and Bulgaria [34]. Ten studies recruited patients with glioma [23,24,25,26,27, 29,30,31,32, 35], and six studies enrolled patients with GBM [21, 22, 28, 33, 34, 36]. The cutoff values of LMR ranged from 1.87 to 5, with a median value of 3.7. Twelve studies used the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to determine the cutoff value [23, 24, 26, 27, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], and four studies adopted X-tile software [21, 22, 25, 28]. Fifteen studies included reporting on the prognostic role of LMR for OS [21,22,23,24,25,26,27, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], and three studies presented the association between LMR and PFS [28, 29, 33]. Fourteen studies derived HRs and 95% CIs by using univariate analysis [21, 22, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34, 36], and two studies applied multivariate analysis [23, 35]. The NOS scores of the included studies ranged from 7 to 9, with a median value of 8, which suggested the high quality of eligible studies (Table 1).

Table 1 Basic characteristics of included studies in this meta-analysis
Full size table

LMR and OS

A total of 15 studies with 2999 patients [21,22,23,24,25,26,27, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] provided the prognostic value of LMR for OS in glioma. As the heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 64.9%, p < 0.001), a random-effects model was used. As shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2, the pooled results were HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.13–1.61, p = 0.001, indicating that a low LMR was significantly correlated with poor OS in patients with glioma. Subgroup analysis showed that the prognostic effect of LMR for OS was not influenced by country or histology (all p < 0.05; Table 2). Moreover, low LMR remained a significant prognostic indicator for poor OS in the following subgroups: sample size < 200 (p = 0.001), mixed treatment (p = 0.002), cutoff value of ≤ 3.7 (p < 0.001), cutoff determination by ROC curve (p = 0.002), and univariate analysis (p = 0.002) (Table 2). Meta-regression analysis showed that country, sample size, histological type, treatment, cutoff value, cutoff determination, and survival analysis were not the only factors that contributed to the significant heterogeneity (all p > 0.05; Table 2). The significant heterogeneity could be the result of multiple factors working together.

Table 2 Subgroup analysis of prognostic role of LMR for overall survival in patients with glioma
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of association between LMR and OS in patients with glioma

Full size image

LMR and PFS

Three studies consisting of 958 patients [28, 29, 33] included reporting on the relationship between LMR and PFS in patients with glioma. The random-effects model was applied due to significant heterogeneity (I2 = 81.7%, p = 0.004). The combined data showed that there was a nonsignificant association between LMR and PFS in glioma (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.75–1.91, p = 0.442; Table 3 and Fig. 3). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that low LMR was a significant prognostic factor for inferior PFS in the following subgroups: studies in non-China countries (p = 0.013), histology of GBM (p = 0.011), surgery treatment (p = 0.013), cutoff value of ≤ 3.7 (p = 0.011), and cutoff value determination of X-tile software (p = 0.013) (Table 3).

Table 3 Subgroup analysis of prognostic role of LMR for progression-free survival in patients with glioma
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of association between LMR and PFS in patients with glioma

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

Using sensitivity analysis, it was shown that the results of the current meta-analysis were stable and reliable (Fig. 4). OS and PFS results were not significantly affected by any one of the included studies.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Sensitivity analysis. A OS and B PFS

Full size image

Publication bias

Potential publication bias was tested by using Begg’s test and Egger’s test. As shown in Fig. 5, the shapes of the funnel plots were symmetric. The results were as follows: for OS—Begg’s test, p = 0.092, Egger’s test, p = 0.150; for PFS—Begg’s test, p = 0.296, Egger’s test, p = 0.161. These results revealed that there was no significant publication bias in this meta-analysis.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Publication bias test for OS and PFS. A Begg’s test for OS, p = 0.092; B Egger’s test for OS, p = 0.150; C Begg’s test for PFS, p = 0.296; and D Egger’s test for PFS, p = 0.161

Full size image

Discussion

The LMR is calculated by dividing the absolute lymphocyte count by the absolute monocyte count. Therefore, a low LMR could be attributed to low lymphocyte counts and/or high monocyte counts. Although the precise mechanisms of the association between LMR and survival in glioma are not fully elucidated, they can be explained in the following aspects. First, lymphocytes play an important role in cellular antitumor responses. Lymphocytes facilitate the activation of the host immune response to cancer by inhibiting the growth and proliferation of cancer cells through direct cytotoxic cell death in immune surveillance [39]. Lymphocytopenia might be related to an inappropriate immune response during tumor growth [40]. Deficiencies in peripheral lymphocytes may result in tumor cell proliferation and metastasis when antitumor responses are impaired [39]. Moreover, cytokines impair T-lymphocytic function and cell-mediated immunity when pro-inflammatory status is present [41]. In contrast, monocytes can differentiate into tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and dendritic cells to promote tumorigenesis and suppress the immune response in the tumor microenvironment (TME) [42]. Angiogenesis may be promoted by TAMs, which produce growth factors and chemokines that contribute to malignant progression [43]. Moreover, in the TME, monocytes from the peripheral blood enter tumor sites constantly and release soluble inhibitory factors and inhibitory molecules that inhibit the immune system’s defenses against tumors [43, 44].

The prognostic value of LMR in patients with glioma was inconsistent according to previous studies. In the current meta-analysis, we retrieved the literature and synthesized the data from 16 studies with 3407 cases. Our meta-analysis indicated that a low LMR was a significant prognostic marker for poor OS in glioma. However, there was a nonsignificant correlation between LMR and PFS. Furthermore, a low LMR was significantly associated with inferior OS and PFS in glioma when using a cutoff value of ≤ 3.7 or when patients received mixed treatment. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias tests confirmed the reliability of our results. Taken together, this meta-analysis demonstrated that a low LMR was a significant prognostic biomarker for long-term survival in patients with glioma. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis investigating the prognostic importance of LMR in glioma patients.

In recent years, many meta-analyses have also reported the prognostic role of LMR in various cancer types [45,46,47,48,49,50]. Hamid et al. showed that a low LMR was associated with poorer OS and disease-free survival (DFS) in rectal cancer in a meta-analysis with 6683 patients [45]. Gao and colleagues revealed that a low LMR was associated with poor OS and reduced DFS/PFS in nasopharyngeal carcinoma through a meta-analysis involving 3773 patients [46]. Dotto-Vasquez et al. performed a meta-analysis including 19 studies and indicated that cholangiocarcinoma patients with low values of LMR were associated with worse OS and poor time to recurrence (TTR) [47]. In a recent meta-analysis comprising 8361 cases, it was reported that decreased pretreatment LMR was significantly correlated with reduced PFS and worse OS in lung cancer [48]. Another large-scale meta-analysis with 10,446 patients found that a low LMR was associated with inferior OS and PFS in lymphoma [49]. Cai and colleagues showed that a lower LMR was associated with poorer OS and PFS in ovarian cancer in their meta-analysis enrolling 2809 patients [50]. In the current meta-analysis, we identified the significant prognostic effect of LMR for OS in glioma, which was in line with findings in other solid tumors.

Notably, this meta-analysis showed that there was a nonsignificant correlation between LMR and PFS in patients with glioma (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.75–1.91, p = 0.442). The negative results could be due to the following reasons. First, the sample size in the LMR and PFS analyses was small. Only three studies with 958 patients were included for analysis. Second, the survival duration for GBM patients was relatively short, with a median survival of 15 months [51]. Moreover, the median PFS after recurrence was only.

1.8 months in glioma patients [52]. Therefore, the follow-up in PFS was not long, so the prognostic role of LMR is nonsignificant. Third, the heterogeneity was significant, which could be a potential reason for this negative result.

The present meta-analysis has some limitations. First, all included studies were retrospective, and most of them were conducted in Asian countries. Therefore, selection bias may be introduced. Second, significant heterogeneity among studies was detected for the analysis of OS and PFS. We adopted a random-effects model or fixed-effects model according to the level of heterogeneity. Third, the cutoff values of LMR were not uniform in the included studies. Our meta-analysis showed that LMR ≤ 3.7 could be an optimal cutoff value for prognostication in glioma. A standard cutoff value of LMR in glioma prognosis needs to be established and validated in future studies. Therefore, due to several limitations, multicenter prospective trials are still needed to verify the results of our meta-analysis. Therefore, due to several limitations, multicenter prospective trials are still needed to verify the results of our meta-analysis.

Conclusions

In summary, this meta-analysis demonstrated that a low LMR was significantly associated with poor OS in glioma. LMR could be a promising and cost-effective prognostic biomarker in patients with glioma in clinical practice.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence interval

DFS:

Disease-free survival

GBM:

Glioblastoma

HR:

Hazard ratio

LMR:

Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio

NLR:

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

NOS:

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

OS:

Overall survival

PFS:

Progression-free survival

PLR:

Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

SII:

Systemic immune-inflammation index

TAMs:

Tumor-associated macrophages

TME:

Tumor microenvironment

TTR:

Time to recurrence

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Wen PY, Huse JT. 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2017;23(6, Neuro-oncology):1531–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ostrom QT, Bauchet L, Davis FG, Deltour I, Fisher JL, Langer CE, Pekmezci M, Schwartzbaum JA, Turner MC, Walsh KM, et al. The epidemiology of glioma in adults: a “state of the science” review. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(7):896–913.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hadjipanayis CG, Van Meir EG. Tumor initiating cells in malignant gliomas: biology and implications for therapy. J Mol Med (Berl). 2009;87(4):363–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P, Brat DJ, Cree IA, Figarella-Branger D, Hawkins C, Ng HK, Pfister SM, Reifenberger G, et al. The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol. 2021;23(8):1231–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Berger TR, Wen PY, Lang-Orsini M, Chukwueke UN. World Health Organization 2021 Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors and Implications for Therapy for Adult-Type Gliomas: A Review. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(10):1493–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rong L, Li N, Zhang ZZ. Emerging therapies for glioblastoma: current state and future directions. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2022;41(1):142.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Tran B, Rosenthal MA. Survival comparison between glioblastoma multiforme and other incurable cancers. J Clin Neurosci. 2010;17(4):417–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Truitt G, Boscia A, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2011–2015. Neuro Oncol. 2018;20(suppl_4):iv1–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M. Immunity, Inflammation, and Cancer. Cell. 2010;140(6):883–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Yasumatsu R, Wakasaki T, Hashimoto K, Nakashima K, Manako T, Taura M, Matsuo M, Nakagawa T. Monitoring the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio may be useful for predicting the anticancer effect of nivolumab in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2019;41(8):2610–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Matsuda A, Yamada T, Matsumoto S, Shinji S, Ohta R, Sonoda H, Shinozuka E, Sekiguchi K, Suzuki H, Yoshida H. Prognostic Role of the Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Aflibercept. In Vivo. 2020;34(5):2667–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Li Q, Pu Y, Gong Z, Yu Y, Sun W, Cheng Z, Wang W, Zhao J. Preoperative systemic immune-inflammation index for predicting the prognosis of thymoma with radical resection. Thorac Cancer. 2023;14(13):1192–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bruni D, Angell HK, Galon J. The immune contexture and Immunoscore in cancer prognosis and therapeutic efficacy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20(11):662–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bispo RG, Bastos Siqueira IF, de Oliveira BFS, Moreira Fernandes CE, Figueiredo LA, Cintra LP, de Oliveira AJM. Prognostic Value of the Platelet-lymphocyte Ratio for Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review. World Neurosurg. 2023;175:137-141.e131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gomes Dos Santos A, de Carvalho RF, de Morais A, Silva TM, Baylão VMR, Azevedo M, de Oliveira AJM. Role of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a predictive factor of glioma tumor grade: A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2021;163:103372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nakamoto S, Ikeda M, Kubo S, Yamamoto M, Yamashita T, Kuwahara C. Prognostic Value of Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio for Japanese Patients With Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Treated With Sorafenib Therapy. Cancer Diagn Progn. 2021;1(5):491–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Zapała Ł, Kunc M, Sharma S, Biernat W, Radziszewski P. Low Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio Is the Potential Indicator of Worse Overall Survival in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma and Venous Tumor Thrombus. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;11(11):2159.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lang C, Egger F, Alireza Hoda M, Saeed Querner A, Ferencz B, Lungu V, Szegedi R, Bogyo L, Torok K, Oberndorfer F, et al. Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio is an independent prognostic factor in surgically treated small cell lung cancer: An international multicenter analysis. Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2022;169:40–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hu Q, Shen G, Li Y, Xie Y, Ma X, Jiang L, Lv Q. Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio after primary surgery is an independent prognostic factor for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: A propensity score matching analysis. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1139929.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lv M, Wang K, Zhang Z, Zhang Z, Wan J. The predictive value of lymphocyte to monocyte ratio for overall survival in cholangiocarcinoma patients with hepatic resection. Cancer Med. 2023;12(8):9482–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhou XW, Dong H, Yang Y, Luo JW, Wang X, Liu YH, Mao Q. Significance of the prognostic nutritional index in patients with glioblastoma: A retrospective study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;151:86–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang PF, Song HW, Cai HQ, Kong LW, Yao K, Jiang T, Li SW, Yan CX. Preoperative inflammation markers and IDH mutation status predict glioblastoma patient survival. Oncotarget. 2017;8(30):50117–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bao Y, Yang M, Jin C, Hou S, Shi B, Shi J, Lin N. Preoperative Hematologic Inflammatory Markers as Prognostic Factors in Patients with Glioma. World Neurosurg. 2018;119:e710–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. He ZQ, Duan H, Lin FH, Zhang J, Chen YS, Zhang GH, Guo CC, Ke C, Zhang XH, Chen ZH, et al. Pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio plus albumin-to-gamma-glutamyl transferase ratio predict the diagnosis of grade III glioma. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(22):623.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang ZY, Zhan YB, Zhang FJ, Yu B, Ji YC, Zhou JQ, Bai YH, Wang YM, Wang L, Jing Y, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative hematological markers combined with molecular pathology in patients with diffuse gliomas. Aging. 2019;11(16):6252–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Chim ST, Sanfilippo P, O’Brien TJ, Drummond KJ, Monif M. Pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte/monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio as prognostic biomarkers in glioma patients. J Neuroimmunol. 2021;361: 577754.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. He Q, Li L, Ren Q. The Prognostic Value of Preoperative Systemic Inflammatory Response Index (SIRI) in Patients With High-Grade Glioma and the Establishment of a Nomogram. Front Oncol. 2021;11: 671811.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Madhugiri VS, Subeikshanan V, Dutt A, Moiyadi A, Epari S, Shetty P, Gupta T, Jalali R, Dutt AK. Biomarkers of Systemic Inflammation in Patients with Glioblastoma: An Analysis of Correlation with Tumour-Related Factors and Survival. Neurol India. 2021;69(4):894–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Xie T, Guo X, Duan H, He Z, Mou Y. Prognostic value of modified systemic inflammatory score in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2021;201: 106428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yan P, Li JW, Mo LG, Huang QR. A nomogram combining inflammatory markers and clinical factors predicts survival in patients with diffuse glioma. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(47): e27972.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen XY, Pan DL, Xu JH, Chen Y, Xu WF, Chen JY, Wu ZY, Lin YX, You HH, Ding CY, et al. Serum Inflammatory Biomarkers Contribute to the Prognosis Prediction in High-Grade Glioma. Front Oncol. 2022;11:754920.

  32. Qi Z, Cai J, Meng X, Cai S, Tang C, Lang L. Prognostic value of preoperative inflammatory markers among different molecular subtypes of lower-grade glioma. J Clin Neurosci. 2022;96:180–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shi X, Li H, Xu Y, Nyalali AMK, Li F. The prognostic value of the preoperative inflammatory index on the survival of glioblastoma patients. Neurol Sci. 2022;43(9):5523–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Stoyanov GS, Lyutfi E, Georgieva R, Dzhenkov DL, Petkova L, Ivanov BD, Kaprelyan A, Ghenev P. The Role of Preoperative Neutrophil, Platelet, and Monocyte to Lymphocyte Ratios as Independent Prognostic Factors for Patient Survival in WHO 2021 Glioblastoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Study. Cureus. 2022;14(6): e25801.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Yang C, Lan T, Wang Y, Huang WH, Li SM, Li J, Li FP, Li YR, Wang ZF, Li ZQ. Cumulative Scoring Systems and Nomograms for Predicating Survival in Patients With Glioblastomas: A Study Based on Peripheral Inflammatory Markers. Front Oncol. 2022;12: 716295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Duan X, Yang B, Zhao C, Tie B, Cao L, Gao Y. Prognostic value of preoperative hematological markers in patients with glioblastoma multiforme and construction of random survival forest model. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):432.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Grp P. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gooden MJ, de Bock GH, Leffers N, Daemen T, Nijman HW. The prognostic influence of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(1):93–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hoffmann TK, Dworacki G, Tsukihiro T, Meidenbauer N, Gooding W, Johnson JT, Whiteside TL. Spontaneous apoptosis of circulating T lymphocytes in patients with head and neck cancer and its clinical importance. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(8):2553–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu H, Wu Y, Wang Z, Yao Y, Chen F, Zhang H, Wang Y, Song Y. Pretreatment platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as a predictor of response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and prognosis for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis. 2013;5(6):783–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Olingy CE, Dinh HQ, Hedrick CC. Monocyte heterogeneity and functions in cancer. J Leukoc Biol. 2019;106(2):309–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chanmee T, Ontong P, Konno K, Itano N. Tumor-associated macrophages as major players in the tumor microenvironment. Cancers (Basel). 2014;6(3):1670–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Peranzoni E, Zilio S, Marigo I, Dolcetti L, Zanovello P, Mandruzzato S, Bronte V. Myeloid-derived suppressor cell heterogeneity and subset definition. Curr Opin Immunol. 2010;22(2):238–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hamid HKS, Emile SH, Davis GN. Prognostic Significance of Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022;65(2):178–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gao P, Peng W, Hu Y. Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck. 2022;44(3):624–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Dotto-Vasquez G, Villacorta-Ampuero AK, Ulloque-Badaracco JR, Hernandez-Bustamante EA, Alarcón-Braga EA, Herrera-Añazco P, Benites-Zapata VA, Hernandez AV. Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio and Clinical Outcomes in Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;12(11):2655.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Jin J, Yang L, Liu D, Li WM. Prognostic Value of Pretreatment Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio in Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2021;20:1533033820983085.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Gao F, Hu J, Zhang J, Xu Y. Prognostic Value of Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte/monocyte Ratio in Lymphoma. J Cancer. 2021;12(12):3407–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Cai L, Song Y, Zhao X. Prognostic significance of lymphocyte monocyte ratio in patients with ovarian cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(14): e19638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Zeng YF, Wei XY, Guo QH, Chen SY, Deng S, Liu ZZ, Gong ZC, Zeng WJ. The efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in treatment of glioma: a single-arm meta-analysis. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1168244.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. McKinnon C, Nandhabalan M, Murray SA, Plaha P. Glioblastoma: clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management. BMJ. 2021;374: n1560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jiang Liu for his assistance in statistical analysis. We would like to thank American Journal Experts (https://www.aje.com/) for English language editing.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Laboratory, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital of Huzhou University, The Fifth School of Clinical Medicine Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Huzhou, 313000, Zhejiang, China

    Yan Wang & Zongxin Zhang

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 401120, China

    Chu Xu

Authors
  1. Yan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chu Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zongxin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YW and CX conceived and designed this meta-analysis scheme and completed the drafts of the manuscript. CX and ZZ designed the search strategies. YW and CX selected the eligible literatures. CX and ZZ independently extracted data. YW and ZZ independently evaluated the risk of bias. CX and ZZ conducted data analysis. CX and ZZ arbitrated any agreements in the process of meta-analysis. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zongxin Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Xu, C. & Zhang, Z. Prognostic value of pretreatment lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in patients with glioma: a meta-analysis. BMC Med 21, 486 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12916-023-03199-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12916-023-03199-6

Keywords

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us