Kari Syrjänen1. 1. Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Turku University Hospital, Savitehtaankatu 1, FIN-20521 Turku, Finland. kari.syrjanen@tyks.fi
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the first reports (in 1979) suggesting an etiological role for human papillomavirus (HPV) in bronchial squamous cell carcinoma, literature reporting HPV detection in lung cancer has expanded rapidly, but a comprehensive meta-analysis has yet to be published. We performed a systematic review and formal meta-analysis of the literature reporting on HPV detection in lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and Current Contents were searched through April 2012. The effect size was calculated as event rates and their 95% Confidence intervals (CI), with homogeneity testing using Cochran's Q and I(2) statistics. Meta-regression was used to test the impact of study-level co-variates (HPV detection method, geographical origin of study, cancer histology) on effect size, and potential publication bias was estimated using funnel plot symmetry (Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation, Egger's regression, and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill method). RESULTS: One hundred studies were eligible, covering 7,381 lung cancer cases from different geographical regions. Altogether, 1,653 (22.4%) samples tested HPV-positive; effect size was 0.348 (95% CI=0.333-0.363; fixed-effects model), and 0.220 (95% CI=0.18-0.259; random effects model). There was significant heterogeneity between the studies stratified by HPV detection technique, but the random effects in between-strata comparison was not significant (p=0.193). When stratified by i) different geographical regions, and ii) different histological types, the between-strata comparison was significant (p=0.0001). However, in meta-regression, HPV detection method (p=0.473), geographical origin (p=0.298) and histological type (p=0.589) were not significant study-level co-variates. No evidence for significant publication bias was found in funnel plot symmetry testing. In sensitivity analysis, all meta-analytic results seemed robust to all one-by-one study removals. CONCLUSION: These meta-analytic results imply that the reported variability in HPV detection rates in lung cancer is better explained by geographical study origin and histological types of cancer than by the HPV detection method itself. In formal meta-regression, however, none of these three factors were significant study-level co-variates accounting for the heterogeneity of the summary effect size estimates, i.e. HPV prevalence in lung cancer.
BACKGROUND: Since the first reports (in 1979) suggesting an etiological role for human papillomavirus (HPV) in bronchial squamous cell carcinoma, literature reporting HPV detection in lung cancer has expanded rapidly, but a comprehensive meta-analysis has yet to be published. We performed a systematic review and formal meta-analysis of the literature reporting on HPV detection in lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and Current Contents were searched through April 2012. The effect size was calculated as event rates and their 95% Confidence intervals (CI), with homogeneity testing using Cochran's Q and I(2) statistics. Meta-regression was used to test the impact of study-level co-variates (HPV detection method, geographical origin of study, cancer histology) on effect size, and potential publication bias was estimated using funnel plot symmetry (Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation, Egger's regression, and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill method). RESULTS: One hundred studies were eligible, covering 7,381 lung cancer cases from different geographical regions. Altogether, 1,653 (22.4%) samples tested HPV-positive; effect size was 0.348 (95% CI=0.333-0.363; fixed-effects model), and 0.220 (95% CI=0.18-0.259; random effects model). There was significant heterogeneity between the studies stratified by HPV detection technique, but the random effects in between-strata comparison was not significant (p=0.193). When stratified by i) different geographical regions, and ii) different histological types, the between-strata comparison was significant (p=0.0001). However, in meta-regression, HPV detection method (p=0.473), geographical origin (p=0.298) and histological type (p=0.589) were not significant study-level co-variates. No evidence for significant publication bias was found in funnel plot symmetry testing. In sensitivity analysis, all meta-analytic results seemed robust to all one-by-one study removals. CONCLUSION: These meta-analytic results imply that the reported variability in HPV detection rates in lung cancer is better explained by geographical study origin and histological types of cancer than by the HPV detection method itself. In formal meta-regression, however, none of these three factors were significant study-level co-variates accounting for the heterogeneity of the summary effect size estimates, i.e. HPV prevalence in lung cancer.
Authors: Antonio Carlos de Freitas; Ana Pavla Gurgel; Elyda Golçalves de Lima; Bianca de França São Marcos; Carolina Maria Medeiros do Amaral Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Emmanouela Sarchianaki; Stavros P Derdas; Markos Ntaoukakis; Elena Vakonaki; Eleni D Lagoudaki; Ismini Lasithiotaki; Anna Sarchianaki; Anastasios Koutsopoulos; Emmanouil K Symvoulakis; Demetrios A Spandidos; Katerina M Antoniou; George Sourvinos Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2013-12-06
Authors: Camille Ragin; Monisola Obikoya-Malomo; Sungjin Kim; Zhengjia Chen; Rafael Flores-Obando; Denise Gibbs; Chihaya Koriyama; Francisco Aguayo; Jill Koshiol; Neil E Caporaso; Giovanna E Carpagnano; Marco Ciotti; Hirotoshi Dosaka-Akita; Masashi Fukayama; Akiteru Goto; Demetrios A Spandidos; Vassilis Gorgoulis; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Robert A A van Boerdonk; Kenzo Hiroshima; Reika Iwakawa; Nikolaos G Kastrinakis; Ichiro Kinoshita; Suminori Akiba; Maria T Landi; H Eugene Liu; Jinn-Li Wang; Ranee Mehra; Fadlo R Khuri; Wan-Teck Lim; Taofeek K Owonikoko; Suresh Ramalingam; Emmanuela Sarchianaki; Kari Syrjanen; Ming-Sound Tsao; Jenna Sykes; Siew Wan Hee; Jun Yokota; Apostolos Zaravinos; Emanuela Taioli Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Nan Zhang; Zhi Ping Ma; Ju Wang; Hui Li Bai; Yi Xin Li; Qin Sun; Lan Yang; Lin Tao; Jin Zhao; Yu Wen Cao; Feng Li; Wen Jie Zhang Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Danny V Colombara; Lisa E Manhart; Joseph J Carter; Stephen E Hawes; Noel S Weiss; James P Hughes; Matt J Barnett; Gary E Goodman; Jennifer S Smith; You-Lin Qiao; Denise A Galloway Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Talita Helena Araujo de Oliveira; Carolina Medeiros do Amaral; Bianca de França São Marcos; Kamylla Conceição Gomes Nascimento; Ana Carine de Miranda Rios; Dafne Carolina Alves Quixabeira; Maria Tereza Cartaxo Muniz; Jacinto da Costa Silva Neto; Antonio Carlos de Freitas Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Yi Xin Li; Lei Zhang; Dilixia Simayi; Nan Zhang; Lin Tao; Lan Yang; Jin Zhao; Yun Zhao Chen; Feng Li; Wen Jie Zhang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 3.240