| Literature DB >> 26517355 |
Yadong Wang1,2, Haiyan Yang3, Guangcai Duan2.
Abstract
Published studies on the association between human epidermal factor receptor 3 (HER3) expression and overall survival (OS) in gastrointestinal cancers have yielded conflicting results. The aim of this study was to explore the association of HER3 over-expression with OS in gastrointestinal cancers. A systematic search was performed through Medline/PubMed, Embase, Science Direct and Elsevier. The summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to estimate the strength of the association. Overall, we observed that HER3 over-expression was associated with worse OS at five years (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.04-1.82); however, HER3 over-expression was not associated with worse OS at three years (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.97-1.84). The cumulative meta-analysis showed similar results. In subgroup analyses by tumor type, HER3 over-expression in gastric cancers was associated with worse OS at both three years (OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.28-2.25) and five years (OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.26-2.41). In conclusion, our results suggest that HER3 over-expression may be associated with worse overall survival in gastric cancers. Well-designed studies with a large sample size are required to further confirm our findings.Entities:
Keywords: HER3; gastrointestinal cancers; overall survival
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26517355 PMCID: PMC4767477 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.5998
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Summary odds ratio of the association between HER3 over-expression and overall survival (OS) in gastrointestinal cancers
| Studies | Number of studies | Heterogeneity test | Analysis model | OR (95% CI) | Hypothesis test | Begg's test | Egger's test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | |||||||||||
| 3-year OS | 11 | 40.12 | 0.000 | Random-effects model | 1.33 (0.97–1.84) | 1.74 | 0.081 | 0.31 | 0.755 | 0.59 | 0.572 |
| 5-year OS | 10 | 41.72 | 0.000 | Random-effects model | 1.38 (1.04–1.82) | 2.26 | 0.024 | 1.25 | 0.210 | 0.96 | 0.364 |
| Gastric cancer | |||||||||||
| 3-year OS | 6 | 11.40 | 0.044 | Random-effects model | 1.69 (1.28–2.25) | 3.66 | 0.000 | 0.38 | 0.707 | 1.18 | 0.302 |
| 5-year OS | 5 | 15.67 | 0.003 | Random-effects model | 1.74 (1.26–2.41) | 3.32 | 0.001 | 2.20 | 0.027 | 7.28 | 0.005 |
| Colorectal cancer | |||||||||||
| 3-year OS | 5 | 12.34 | 0.015 | Random-effects model | 0.84 (0.48–1.47) | 0.62 | 0.536 | 0.73 | 0.462 | 0.46 | 0.679 |
| 5-year OS | 5 | 17.38 | 0.002 | Random-effects model | 1.05 (0.67–1.65) | 0.20 | 0.840 | 0.73 | 0.462 | 0.57 | 0.608 |
Figure 1Forest plot of the odds ratio of the association between HER3 over-expression and overall survival at five years a. and three years b.
Figure 2Forest plot of the cumulative odds ratio of the association between HER3 over-expression and overall survival at five years a. and three years b.
Figure 3Sensitivity analysis of the association between HER3 over-expression and overall survival at five years a. and three years b.
Figure 4Funnel plot analysis to detect publication bias for the association between HER3 over-expression and overall survival at five years a. and three years b.
Figure 5Flow diagram of the selection process
Evaluation of HER3 by immunohistochemistry in the selected studies
| Author | Year | Tumor Type | Number of patients | Percentage of HER3 over-expression (%) | Cutoff for HER3 over-expression | Quality score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kountourakis [ | 2006 | Colorectal | 106 | 17.0% | Positive: Membranous staining: >1% of tumor cells stained. Cytoplasmic staining: 2+: moderate immunostaining in >10% of tumor cells and 3+: strong immunostaining in >10% of tumor cells. | 6 |
| Hayashi [ | 2008 | Gastric | 134 | 59.0% | Positive: 2+ = moderate staining, and 3+ = strong staining. | 7 |
| Baiocchi [ | 2009 | Colorectal | 109 | 69.7% | Cytoplasmic staining was scored as “0” with no staining or weak staining in <10% of tumor cells; membranous staining: “0” when there was no staining at all or membrane staining <10% of tumor cells; “1+” with perceptible membrane staining in >10% tumor cells; “2+” with weak-to-moderate staining of the entire membrane in more than 10% tumor cells; “3+” with strong staining of the entire membrane in >10% tumor cells. | 5 |
| Begnami [ | 2011 | Gastric | 191 | 34.0% | Slices with scores of 8 or higher were classified as positive, and slices with scores lower than 8 were classified as negative. | 6 |
| Beji [ | 2012 | Colorectal | 110 | 74.5% | HER3 expression was classified as weak, intermediate, or strong (analysis compared low vs. intermediate + strong). | 6 |
| Wu [ | 2014 | Gastric | 161 | 55.9% | Scores 0 and 1 were considered negative, and scores 2 and 3 were considered positive for HER3. | 6 |
| Ledel [ | 2014 | Colorectal | 236 | 69.5% | The intensity of staining was graded 0–3, where grade 0–1 was categorized as low, and grade 2–3 was categorized as high expression of membranous HER3. | 7 |
| Ema [ | 2014 | Gastric | 167 | 58.7% | 0 = no staining observed in invasive tumor cells, 1+ = weak, incomplete membrane staining in any proportion of invasive tumor cells, or weak, complete membrane staining in less than 10% of cells, 2+ = complete membrane staining that is non-uniform or weak but with obvious circumferential distribution in at least 10% of cells, or intense complete membrane staining in 30% or less of tumor cells, 3+ = uniform intense membrane staining of more than 30% of invasive tumor cells. | 6 |
| Tang [ | 2015 | Gastric | 114 | 66.7% | 0, if no staining was observed; 1+, if more than 10% of the tumor cells had weak staining on the membrane (or cytoplasm for HER3); 2+, if more than 10% of the tumor cells had moderate staining on the membrane (or cytoplasm for HER3); and 3+, if more than 10% of the tumor cells had strong staining on the membrane (or cytoplasm for HER3). | 5 |
| Seo [ | 2015 | Colorectal | 364 | 69.0% | 0 and 1+ were considered no-over-expression, and 2+ and 3+ were considered over-expression. | 7 |
| He [ | 2015 | Gastric | 271 | 20.7% | Immunoreactive results of 2+ or 3+ were considered to be positive or high expression. By contrast, 0 or 1+ was evaluated as negative or low expression. | 7 |