Inexpensive Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers in Ovarian Cancer: An Umbrella Systematic Review of 17 Prognostic Meta-Analyses

The association of several inflammation-based biomarkers [lymphocyte-to-monocyte, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios (LMR, NLR, and PLR, respectively)] with the survival of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients has been extensively investigated in several systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MAs) of observational studies. The aim of this umbrella systematic review is to appraise all available results in published MAs that explored the association between these biomarkers and EOC outcomes. An umbrella systematic review of the current evidence for systemic inflammatory biomarkers in the peripheral blood of EOC patients was performed by searching several databases including PubMed/Medline and Web of Science. The quality of the MAs was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 tool as well as other qualitative criteria. The evidence was graded from convincing (Class I) to weak (Class IV). Our umbrella review appraised 17 MAs of retrospective studies (range: 7-16) with a number of enrolled patients ranging from 1,636 to 4,910 patients in each MA. All these MAs demonstrated that pretreatment high NLR and PLR, as well as low LMR, were independent predictors of poor overall survival and progression-free survival in EOC. Nearly all published MAs were conducted by Chinese researchers (16/17) and were redundant in their character. Another issue in these MAs is the absence of prior PROSPERO database registration as well as the earlier exclusion of the gray literature. On the other hand, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)-based reporting guidelines were used in nine out of the 17 MAs. A good number of MAs have transparently provided funding acknowledgment. The AMSTAR-2-based assessment showed low quality in 11 out of the 17 reviewed MAs. This negative rating was largely due to the absence of critical domains. Finally, all evaluated MAs were rated as Class III or IV (suggestive and weak, respectively). Despite the power of MAs in increasing sampling and precision, the quality of the current non-randomized evidence on this topic is still weak.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020201493.

Methylation vs. Protein Inflammatory Biomarkers and Their Associations With Cardiovascular Function

DNA methylation data can be used to estimate proportions of leukocyte subsets retrospectively, when directly measured cell counts are unavailable. The methylation-derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratios (mdNLRs and mdLMRs) have proven to be particularly useful as indicators of systemic inflammation. As with directly measured NLRs and LMRs, these methylation-derived ratios have been used as prognostic markers for cancer, although little is known about them in relation to other disorders with inflammatory components, such as cardiovascular disease (CVD). Recently, methylation of five genomic cytosine-phosphate-guanine sites (CpGs) was suggested as proxies for mdNLRs, potentially providing a cost-effective alternative when whole-genome methylation data are not available. This study compares seven methylation-derived inflammatory markers (mdNLR, mdLMR, and individual CpG sites) with five conventionally used protein-based inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, interleukins 6 and 10, tumor-necrosis factor alpha, and interferon-gamma) and a protein-based inflammation score, in their associations with cardiovascular function (CVF) and risk. We found that markers of CVF were more strongly associated with methylation-derived than protein-based markers. In addition, the protein-based and methylation-derived inflammatory markers complemented rather than proxied one another in their contribution to the variance in CVF. There were no strong correlations between the methylation and protein markers either. Therefore, the methylation markers could offer unique information on the inflammatory process and are not just surrogate markers for inflammatory proteins. Although the five CpGs mirrored the mdNLR well in their capacity as proxies, they contributed to CVF above and beyond the mdNLR, suggesting possible added functional relevance. We conclude that methylation-derived indicators of inflammation enable individuals with increased CVD risk to be identified without measurement of protein-based inflammatory markers. In addition, the five CpGs investigated here could be useful surrogates for the NLR when the cost of array data cannot be met. Used in tandem, methylation-derived and protein-based inflammatory markers explain more variance than protein-based inflammatory markers alone.