| Literature DB >> 23442983 |
Vanessa Y Tan1, Sarah J Lewis, Josephine C Adams, Richard M Martin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fascin-1 is an actin-bundling protein expressed in many human carcinomas, although absent from most normal epithelia. Fascin-1 promotes filopodia formation, migration and invasion in carcinoma cells; in mouse xenograft tumor models it contributes to metastasis. Fascin-1 is an interesting candidate biomarker for aggressive, metastatic carcinomas but data from individual studies of human tumors have not yet been pooled systematically.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23442983 PMCID: PMC3635876 DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-52
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Figure 1Flow diagram of the systematic review and meta-analysis process.
Figure 2The association of fascin-1 with mortality in breast, colorectal, gastric, lung and esophageal carcinomas. The Forest plots show (A) Positive versus negative = positive fascin-1 staining versus negative fascin-1 staining; (B) High versus low = High fascin-1 staining versus low fascin-1 staining (see Methods for details of the scoring categorizations). In both A and B, squares indicate the study-specific effect estimate, with the size proportional to the inverse of the variance (I-V); horizontal lines show study-specific 95% confidence intervals. The diamonds are pooled estimates and their 95% confidence intervals, based on random or fixed effects meta-analysis models. The dashed vertical line is the overall pooled estimate across all included studies and carcinomas.
Figure 3The association of fascin-1 with disease progression in breast, colorectal and lung carcinomas. In the Forest plot, positive versus negative = positive fascin-1 staining versus negative fascin-1 staining. Squares indicate the study-specific effect estimate, with the size proportional to the inverse of the variance (I-V); horizontal lines show study-specific 95% confidence intervals. The diamonds are pooled estimates and their 95% confidence intervals, based on random or fixed effects meta-analysis models. The dashed vertical line is the overall pooled estimate across all included studies and carcinomas. Time-to-disease progression was calculated from the date of surgery to the date of disease progression.
Figure 4The association of fascin-1 with lymph node metastasis in colorectal, gastric, lung and esophageal carcinomas. The Forest plots show (A) Positive versus negative = positive fascin-1 staining versus negative fascin-1 staining; (B) High versus low = high fascin-1 staining versus low fascin-1 staining. In both A and B, squares indicate the study-specific effect estimate, with the size proportional to the inverse of the variance (I-V); horizontal lines show study-specific 95% confidence intervals. The diamonds are pooled estimates and their 95% confidence intervals, based on random or fixed effects meta-analysis models. The dashed vertical line is the overall pooled estimate across all included studies and carcinomas.
Figure 5The association of fascin-1 with distant metastasis in colorectal, gastric and oesophageal carcinomas. The Forest plots show (A) Positive versus negative = positive fascin-1 staining versus negative fascin-1 staining; (B) High versus low = high fascin-1 staining versus low fascin-1 staining. In both A and B, squares indicate the study-specific effect estimate, with the size proportional to the inverse of the variance (I-V); horizontal lines show study-specific 95% confidence intervals. The diamonds are pooled estimates and their 95% confidence intervals, based on random or fixed effects meta-analysis models. The dashed vertical line is the overall pooled estimate across all included studies and carcinomas.
Subgroup analyses
| Strata of analysis for each outcome | Number of studies included | HR/RR as appropriate (95% CI); | Heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Studies with a score of ≥6 points [ | 8 | 1.43 (1.26 to 1.63); | I2 = 12.4%; |
| Studies with a score of 5 points [ | 2 | 2.20 (0.77 to 6.34); | I2 = 52.6%; |
| Studies with a score of <5 points [ | 8 | 1.48 (1.05 to 2.08); | I2 = 55.5%; |
| Study with a score of ≥6 points [ | 1 | 1.52 (1.04 to 2.23); | |
| Studies with a score of 5 points [ | 2 | 1.91 (0.64 to 5.70); | I2 = 77.4%; |
| Studies with a score of <5 points [ | 3 | 1.90 (0.81 to 4.46); | I2 = 54.9%; |
| Study with a score of ≥6 points [ | 6 | 1.21 (0.97 to 1.51); | I2 = 68.5%; |
| Studies with a score of <5 points [ | 11 | 1.47 (1.25 to 1.73); | I2 = 38.5%; |
| Studies with a score of ≥6 points [ | 4 | 1.81 (1.28 to 2.57); | I2 = 0.0%; |
| Studies with a score of <5 points [ | 5 | 1.68 (1.08 to 2.62); | I2 = 0.0%; |
| Studies with results from multivariable analysis [ | 10 | 1.44 (1.28 to 1.62); | I2 = 21.7%; |
| Studies without results from multivariable analysis [ | 8 | 1.48 (0.97 to 2.26); | I2 = 55.3%; |
Note: Time-to-disease progression is defined by the occurrence of the outcomes time-to-mortality, recurrence or metastasis.
Sensitivity analyses
| Strata of analysis for each outcome | Number of studies included | HR (95% CI); P-value | Heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Studies with definition for cancer specific mortality included [ | 10 | 1.49 (1.29 to 1.72); | I2:23.4%; |
| B. Only Stage III/IV colorectal carcinoma studies included [ | High versus Low: 2 | High versus Low: 1.64 (1.34 to 2.00); | I2: 0%; |
| Positive versus Negative: 2 | Positive versus Negative: 1.95 (1.32 to 2.87); | I2: 46.7%; | |
| Overall colorectal studies: 4 | Overall colorectal studies: 1.70 (1.42 to 2.03); | I2: 7.2%; |
Figure 6Assessment of publication bias for mortality, disease progression analysis, lymph node metastasis and distant metastasis. In each funnel plot analysis, black dots represent each study's effect estimate (drawn on a log scale) plotted against its standard error. The outer dashed lines represent the 95% confidence limits around the summary effect estimate, within which 95% of studies are expected to lie in the absence of either biases or heterogeneity. P-values are from the results of Egger's test to assess publication bias.