| Literature DB >> 26234583 |
Mingfei Zhao1, Feng Liang1, Buyi Zhang2, Wei Yan1, Jianmin Zhang1.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequent malignant neoplasms worldwide. Up to now, no biomarker has been used to predict the prognosis and surveillance of patients with CRC. Recently, the association between osteopontin (OPN) overexpression and the prognosis of CRC was investigated widely, but the results were inconsistent. Therefore, the aim of present meta-analysis was to assess the prognostic effect of osteopontin in patients with CRC. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and Chinese Medical Database were systematically searched. A total of 15 studies containing 1698 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled data of studies showed that high OPN expression was significantly associated with high tumor grades (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.55-3.23), lymph node metastasis (OR = 2.36, 95% CI 1.71-3.26) and tumor distant metastasis (OR = 2.38, 95% CI 1.01-5.60). Moreover, high OPN expression was significantly associated with the 2-year (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.30-3.00), 3-year (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.24-2.68), 5 year (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28-1.82) survival rates and overall survival (OS, HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.12-2.60), respectively. These results indicated that OPN could serve as a prognostic biomarker and as a potential therapeutic target for CRC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26234583 PMCID: PMC4522607 DOI: 10.1038/srep12713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Characteristics of studies for association between OPN and colorectal cancers.
| Study/Year (Reference) | Tumor site | Sample size | Sample source | Tumor grade (I–II/III–IV) | OPN Detection method | cut-off level of ‘high’ OPN expression | No. of patients with ‘high’ OPN | Follow-up duration (months) | Survival rate (%) | Study quality (Points) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-year | 3-year | 5-year | |||||||||||||
| Low OPN | High OPN | Low OPN | High OPN | Low OPN | High OPN | ||||||||||
| Rohde F 2007 | colon | 120 | Tissue | NR | RT-PCR | ≥9-fold | 39 | 44–131 | 88.9 | 66.7 | 82.7 | 53.8 | 77.8 | 51.3 | 8/9 |
| Chen SH 2007 | colorectal | 60 | Tissue | 20/40 | IHC | >10% | 40 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
| Wang XF 2008 | colon | 60 | Tissue | 17/43 | IHC | IRS ≥ 4 | 43 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
| Chen Y 2009 | colorectal | 76 | Serum | NR | Elisa | >157.9 ng/ml | 38 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
| Likui W 2010 | colorectal | 84 | Tissue | 75/9 | RT-PCR | >value of 0.276 | 42 | 60 | 92.9 | 71.4 | 83.3 | 52.4 | 71.4 | 45.2 | 7/9 |
| Wild N 2010 | colorectal | 265 | Serum | NR | Elisa | >specificity of 95% | 80 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
| Lin AY 2011 | colorectal | 154 | Tissue | NR | IHC | IRS ≥ 2 | 90 | 7–184 | 60.6 | 53.3 | 52.5 | 48.9 | 47.5 | 37.8 | 8/9 |
| Zhao M 2011 | colorectal | 30 | Tissue | NR | IHC | IRS ≥ 4 | 23 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
| Jing LI 2012 | colorectal | 77 | Tissue | 57/20 | IHC | >10% | 38 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
| Sun L 2012 | colorectal | 213 | Tissue | 186/25 | IHC | IRS ≥ 2 | 76 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
| Yang LJ 2012 | colorectal | 60 | Tissue | 17/43 | IHC | IRS ≥ 1 | 43 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
| Uhlmann ME 2012 | colorectal | 118 | Tissue | NR | RT-PCR | >75% quantile | 26 | 133 | 92.2 | 76.9 | 89.6 | 73.1 | 74.0 | 69.2 | 8/9 |
| Rao G 2013 | colorectal | 190 | Tissue | 138/52 | IHC | Moderate staining | 124 | 60 | 66.7 | 40.3 | 54.5 | 27.4 | 54.5 | 25.8 | 8/9 |
| Viana Lde S 2013 | colorectal | 114 | Tissue | NR | IHC | IRS > 4 | 103 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
| Wang CJ 2014 | colorectal | 76 | Tissue | 34/42 | IHC | IRS > 3 | 39 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 6/9 |
RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction; IHC, immunohistochemistry; Elisa, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IRS: immunoreactive score, NR: not reported; OPN: osteopontin.
Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.
| Selection |
|---|
| (1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort |
| (a) Truly representative of the average patients with colorectal cancers in the community |
| (b) Somewhat representative of the average patients with colorectal cancers in the community |
| (c) Selected group of users (e.g., nurses, volunteers) |
| (d) No description of the derivation of the cohort |
| (2) Selection of the non exposed cohort |
| (a) Drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort |
| (b) Drawn from a different source |
| (c) No description of the derivation of the non exposed cohort |
| (3) Ascertainment of exposure (Proof of colorectal cancers and osteopontin measurement) |
| (a) Secure record (e.g., surgical records) |
| (b) Structured interview |
| (c) Written self report |
| (d) No description |
| (4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study |
| (a) Yes |
| (b) No |
| Comparability |
| (1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis |
| (a) Study controls for recurrence or metastasis |
| (b) Study controls for any additional factor (Age, gender, grade, KPS score, etc.) |
| Outcome |
| (1) Assessment of outcome |
| (a) Independent blind assessment |
| (b) Record linkage |
| (c) Self report |
| (d) No description |
| (2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? (Death or recurrence) |
| (a) Yes (60 months) |
| (b) No |
| (3) Adequacy of follow up of cohorts |
| (a) Complete follow up- all subjects accounted for |
| (b) Subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias-small number lost- (25%) follow up, or description provided of those lost) |
| (c) Follow up rate (<75%) and no description of those lost |
| (d) No statement |
A maximum of one star (*)*: can be given for each numbereditem within the ‘Selection’ and ‘Outcome’ categories. While a maximum of twostars**: can be given for ‘Comparability’.
Figure 1Flow chart of study selection procedure.
Figure 2(a) Forest plot for the relationships between Osteopontin (OPN) expression and tumor grades of colorectal cancer. (b) Begg’s funnel plots of publication bias for meta-analysis of OPN. (c) Sensitivity analysis for meta-analysis of OPN.
Figure 3Forest plot for the relationships between Osteopontin (OPN) expression and the tumor stage.
(a) the relationship between OPN expression and the depth of tumor invasion. (b) the relationship between OPN expression and the lymph node metastasis. (c) the relationship between OPN expression and the distant metastasis.
Figure 4Forest plots for the relationships between osteopontin expression and prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer.
(a) 2-year survival rate, (b) 3-year survival rate, (c) 5 year survival rate, d overall survival rate.