壶腹周围胰腺癌炎症反应评分系统的预后能力:系统综述

Majid Ali, A. Farrugia, R. Bhogal, Saboor Khan, G. Marangoni, J. Ahmad
{"title":"壶腹周围胰腺癌炎症反应评分系统的预后能力:系统综述","authors":"Majid Ali, A. Farrugia, R. Bhogal, Saboor Khan, G. Marangoni, J. Ahmad","doi":"10.37029/JCAS.V5I2.204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Assessment of systemic inflammatory response forms the basis of several scoring systems that attempt to prognosticate patients with periampullary pancreatic carcinoma (PPC). We assessed the validity of three of these scoring systems for patients’ prognosis following intervention for PPC: Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and its modified version (mGPS), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR).Methods: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for all published studies until September 2018 using comprehensive text word and MeSH terms. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines was followed. All identified studies were analysed and relevant studies were included in the review.Results: Three studies which assessed the role of GPS, four studies that evaluated the use of NLR and three that assessed the role of PLR in patients with PPC were identified. None of these studies demonstrated any value in the pre-operative assessment of patients with PPC. The limited number of studies available precluded further statistical analysis.Conclusions: Based on available evidence, GPS, NLR and PLR do not appear to be useful scoring systems to predict prognosis of patients with PPC. Larger studies are warranted before the application of inflammatory scoring systems could be recommended in patients with PPC.Key words: Periampullary cancer, Glasgow prognostic score, modified Glasgow prognostic score, platelet-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio","PeriodicalId":73631,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer & allied specialties","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PROGNOSTIC POWER OF INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE SCORING SYSTEMS IN PERIAMPULLARY PANCREATIC CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW\",\"authors\":\"Majid Ali, A. Farrugia, R. Bhogal, Saboor Khan, G. Marangoni, J. Ahmad\",\"doi\":\"10.37029/JCAS.V5I2.204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Assessment of systemic inflammatory response forms the basis of several scoring systems that attempt to prognosticate patients with periampullary pancreatic carcinoma (PPC). We assessed the validity of three of these scoring systems for patients’ prognosis following intervention for PPC: Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and its modified version (mGPS), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR).Methods: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for all published studies until September 2018 using comprehensive text word and MeSH terms. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines was followed. All identified studies were analysed and relevant studies were included in the review.Results: Three studies which assessed the role of GPS, four studies that evaluated the use of NLR and three that assessed the role of PLR in patients with PPC were identified. None of these studies demonstrated any value in the pre-operative assessment of patients with PPC. The limited number of studies available precluded further statistical analysis.Conclusions: Based on available evidence, GPS, NLR and PLR do not appear to be useful scoring systems to predict prognosis of patients with PPC. Larger studies are warranted before the application of inflammatory scoring systems could be recommended in patients with PPC.Key words: Periampullary cancer, Glasgow prognostic score, modified Glasgow prognostic score, platelet-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio\",\"PeriodicalId\":73631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cancer & allied specialties\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cancer & allied specialties\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37029/JCAS.V5I2.204\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer & allied specialties","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37029/JCAS.V5I2.204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:评估全身炎症反应是几个评分系统的基础,这些评分系统试图预测壶腹周围胰腺癌(PPC)患者的预后。我们评估了三种评分系统对PPC干预后患者预后的有效性:格拉斯哥预后评分(GPS)及其改良版(mGPS)、血小板-淋巴细胞比率(PLR)和中性粒细胞-淋巴细胞比率(NLR)。方法:使用综合文本词和MeSH术语检索EMBASE和MEDLINE数据库中截至2018年9月的所有已发表的研究。对流行病学指南中的观察性研究进行meta分析。对所有确定的研究进行分析,并将相关研究纳入综述。结果:3项研究评估了GPS的作用,4项研究评估了NLR的使用,3项研究评估了PLR在PPC患者中的作用。这些研究都没有证明术前评估PPC患者有任何价值。由于现有研究的数量有限,无法进行进一步的统计分析。结论:根据现有证据,GPS、NLR和PLR似乎不是预测PPC患者预后的有用评分系统。在推荐炎症评分系统应用于PPC患者之前,需要进行更大规模的研究。关键词:壶腹周围癌,格拉斯哥预后评分,改良格拉斯哥预后评分,血小板-淋巴细胞比值,中性粒细胞-淋巴细胞比值
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
PROGNOSTIC POWER OF INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE SCORING SYSTEMS IN PERIAMPULLARY PANCREATIC CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Introduction: Assessment of systemic inflammatory response forms the basis of several scoring systems that attempt to prognosticate patients with periampullary pancreatic carcinoma (PPC). We assessed the validity of three of these scoring systems for patients’ prognosis following intervention for PPC: Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and its modified version (mGPS), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR).Methods: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for all published studies until September 2018 using comprehensive text word and MeSH terms. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines was followed. All identified studies were analysed and relevant studies were included in the review.Results: Three studies which assessed the role of GPS, four studies that evaluated the use of NLR and three that assessed the role of PLR in patients with PPC were identified. None of these studies demonstrated any value in the pre-operative assessment of patients with PPC. The limited number of studies available precluded further statistical analysis.Conclusions: Based on available evidence, GPS, NLR and PLR do not appear to be useful scoring systems to predict prognosis of patients with PPC. Larger studies are warranted before the application of inflammatory scoring systems could be recommended in patients with PPC.Key words: Periampullary cancer, Glasgow prognostic score, modified Glasgow prognostic score, platelet-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Marginal Contribution of Pathogenic RAD51D Germline Variants to Pakistani Early-Onset and Familial Breast/Ovarian Cancer Patients. Mitigating Cardiotoxicity Associated with Anticancer Drugs: An Updated Systematic Review. Survival Outcomes in Malignancy-related Hypercalcemia: A Tertiary Care Single-center Experience. Cancer Statistics from the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Trust's Hospital-based Cancer Registry, Pakistan, 1994-2022: An Observational Study. Clinical Outcome of Patients Receiving Rituximab in Combination with Bendamustine in Indolent B-cell Lymphomas: A Single-center Institutional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1