Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as biomarkers to prognosticate survival in advanced gastric cancer patients in the era of immunotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Gastric cancer (GC) remains an important global health concern with limited treatment options for advanced cases. Immunotherapy has shown promising results, but identifying predictive biomarkers for treatment efficacy is challenging. Novel inflammatory markers, such as the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), derived from complete blood count measurements, have gained attention as potential prognostic indicators. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the roles of the PLR and NLR as predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced GC and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) patients treated with immunotherapy. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. A total of 16 studies involving NLR and 8 studies involving PLR were included. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the association between high biomarker values and poor OS and PFS. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Poor OS, PFS were defined by each study as statistically significant shorter survival. Results: A high NLR was significantly associated with worse OS (HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.70-2.62) and PFS (HR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.43-2.17). High PLR was also significantly associated with poorer OS (HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.44-2.17) and PFS (HR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.33-1.96). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of these findings. Publication bias was noted in NLR analysis for OS but not for PFS. PLR analysis showed low publication bias. Conclusions: Elevated NLR and PLR are associated with unfavorable OS and PFS outcomes in advanced GC/GEJC patients on immunotherapy. These findings imply the utility of these easily accessible biomarkers in prognostic assessment. However, standardized cutoff values and further research on interactions with the tumor microenvironment and comorbidities are needed. Additional prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings for both biomarkers.

Challenges and opportunities in building a health economic framework for personalized medicine in oncology.

Personalized medicine has allowed for knowledge at an individual level for several diseases and this has led to improvements in prevention and treatment of various types of neoplasms. Despite the greater availability of tests, the costs of genomic testing and targeted therapies are still high for most patients, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Although value frameworks and health technology assessment are fundamental to allow decision-making by policymakers, there are several concerns in terms of personalized medicine pharmacoeconomics. A global effort may improve these tools in order to allow access to personalized medicine for an increasing number of patients with cancer.

Evidence Strength of Pharmaceutical Industry-Funded Clinical Trials in Metastatic NSCLC: A Comparison With Other Sources of Funding.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are expensive and often require funding from the pharmaceutical industry (PI). We aimed to compare studies funded by the PI with those funded by other sources in terms of costs, reported results, and strength of evidence. METHODS: We searched PubMed for clinical trial reports on metastatic NSCLC published between 2012 and 2017. We divided all the studies into two groups: studies funded by the PI and those funded by other sources. The primary end point was to compare the evidence strength of each group. The secondary end points were to compare the number of patients included, the number and costs of innovative drugs studied, whether there was preferential reporting of positive results in the experimental arm, and the risk of bias. RESULTS: We found 3004 studies, and of these, we analyzed 477 studies (275 sponsored by the PI and 202 funded by other sources). A total of 85,328 patients overall were included (64,434 in studies sponsored by the PI and 20,894 in studies with other funding sources; p < 0.001). The studies funded by the PI had stronger evidence (p < 0.001), evaluated more innovative therapies (72% versus 36%; p < 0.001), and resulted in a higher proportion of open-access manuscripts (63% versus 47%; p < 0.001). There was no considerable difference regarding the reporting of experimental arm superiority or the risk of bias between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with studies from other sources of funding, those funded by the PI in the lung cancer field collected stronger evidence, assessed more expensive and innovative therapies, and seemed to equally emphasize positive and negative results.