| Literature DB >> 26618165 |
Hai-Yong Ren1, Ling-Ling Sun1, Heng-Yuan Li1, Zhao-Ming Ye1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serum alkaline phosphatase (SALP) is commonly elevated in osteosarcoma patients. A number of studies have investigated the prognostic role of SALP level in patients with osteosarcoma but yielded inconsistent results.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26618165 PMCID: PMC4649087 DOI: 10.1155/2015/160835
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Main characteristics and results of the eligible studies for evaluation of overall survival.
| Study | Country | Number of patients | Age (y) | ALP cut-off (IU/L) | Enneking stage | HR (95% CI) | Follow-up (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Aparicio et al., 1999 [ | Spain | 33 | 17 (12–42) | 115 | II | 1.26 (0.42–3.74) | 96 (60–156) |
| Foukas et al., 2002 [ | UK | 45 | 18 (6–48) | NA | IIB | 3.44 (1.52–7.79) | 68 (28–88) |
| Ford et al., 2004 [ | UK | 350 | NS (<40) | NA | II | 1.66 (1.09–2.51) | NA |
| Bramer et al., 2005 [ | UK | 89 | NA | NA | II | 1.49 (0.72–3.06) | NA |
| Mialou et al., 2005 [ | France | 60 | 13.5 (2–19) | 500 | IIIB | 2.2 (1.2–4.1) | NA |
| Yalçın et al., 2008 [ | Turkey | 55 | 13 (7–17) | NA | II-III | 1.1 (0.5–2.41) | NA |
| Chou et al., 2009 [ | USA | 91 | NA | NA | III | 3.16 (1.77–5.36) | 89 (1–141) |
| Kim et al., 2009 [ | Korea | 67 | 15.7 (3.8–644) | NA | II | 1.37 (0.54–3.45) | 59.9 |
| Wu et al., 2009 [ | Taiwan ROC | 91 | 20.2 (5–84) | A† | II-III | 2.52 (1.32–4.75) | 58.2 (2–233) |
| Yao et al., 2009 [ | China | 57 | 16 (6–70) | 136 | II-III | 3.45 (1.4–8.46) | 32.5 (10–52) |
| Hagleitner et al., 2011 [ | Netherlands | 94 | 17.8 (4.5–39.5) | NA | II-III | 1.66 (0.88–3.11) | 67.2 (28.8–360) |
| Ferrari et al., 2012 [ | Italy | 209 | 14 (4–39) | A† | II | 1.69 (0.98–2.9) | 76 (31–115) |
| Han et al., 2012 [ | China | 177 | 23.2 (5–57) | A§ | II | 1.80 (1.28–2.51) | 87 (8–144) |
| Durnali et al., 2013 [ | Turkey | 211 | 20 (13–74) | A$ | II-III | 1.75 (1.23–2.5) | 30.5 (0.5–213) |
| Min et al., 2013 [ | China | 333 | 19 (5–78) | NA | II-III | 1.73 (1.28–2.33) | NA (1–100) |
| Hung et al., 2015 [ | Taiwan ROC | 69 | 13.5 (3.8–17.7) | 150 | II-III | 3.08 (1.05–9.08) | 51.6 (18–111.6) |
| Berner et al., 2015 [ | Norway | 301 | NA | AΔ | II-III | 1.64 (1.22–2.19) | NA |
NA: not available, A: available (see the footnotes for details), HR: hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, y: year(s), and m: month(s).
$: 2 times of upper limit normal level.
†: ALP cut-off: 2–10 y 100–350 IU/L; 10–13 y female 110–400 IU/L; 13–15 y male 125–500 IU/L; 20–50 y 25–100 IU/L; other childhood age 73–300 IU/L.
§: ALP cut-off: >18 y 150 IU/L; <18 y 110 IU/L.
Δ: ALP cut-off: 0–17 y 400 IU/L; >17 y 105 IU/L.
Main characteristics and results of the eligible studies for evaluation of metastasis development for nonmetastatic patients.
| Study | Country | Number of patients | Age (y) | ALP cut-off (IU/L) | Enneking stage | RR (95% CI) | Follow-up (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smeland et al., 2003 [ | Norway | 104 | NA | A† | II | 1.66 (0.68–4.07) | 83 (42–124) |
| Han et al., 2012 [ | China | 177 | 23.2 (5–57) | A§ | II | 2.17 (0.97–4.84) | 87 (8–144) |
| Kim et al., 2014 [ | Korea | 91 | NA | A§ | IIB | 2.03 (1.04–3.97) | NA |
NA: not available, A: available (see the footnotes for details), RR: relative risk, y: year(s), and m: month(s).
†: ALP cut-off: 2–10 y 350 IU/L; 10–13 y female 400 IU/L; 13–15 y male 500 IU/L; 20–50 y 100 IU/L; other childhood age 300 IU/L.
§: ALP cut-off: >14 y 115.5 IU/L; <14 y 300 IU/L.
Main characteristics and results of the eligible studies for evaluation of event-free survival.
| Study | Country | Number of patients | Age (y) | ALP cut-off (IU/L) | Enneking stage | HR (95% CI) | Follow-up (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mialou et al., 2005 [ | France | 48 | 13.5 (2–19) | 500 | IIIB | 2.7 (1.5–4.8) | NA |
| Lee et al., 2007 [ | Korea | 45 | <15 | A† | II | 4.55 (1.22–16.99) | 54 (6–153) |
| Yalçın et al., 2008 [ | Turkey | 55 | 13 (7–17) | NA | II-III | 1.11 (0.54–2.31) | NA |
| Kim et al., 2009 [ | Korea | 67 | 15.7 (3.8–64.4) | NA | II | 1.84 (0.84–4.07) | 59.9 |
| Chou et al., 2009 [ | USA | 91 | NA | NA | III | 2.83 (1.68–4.79) | 89 (1–141) |
| Ferrari et al., 2012 [ | Italy | 209 | 14 (4–39) | A§ | II | 1.71 (1.09–2.67) | 76 (31–115) |
| Berner et al., 2015 [ | Norway | 237 | NA | AΔ | II-III | 1.78 (1.26–2.52) | NA |
NA: not available, A: available (see the footnotes for details), HR: hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, y: year(s), and m: month(s).
†: ALP cut-off: 2–10 y 420 IU/L; 10-11 y 560 IU/L; 12–15 y male 495 IU/L; 12-13 y female 420 IU/L; 14-15 y female 230 IU/L.
§: ALP cut-off: 2–10 y 350 IU/L; 10–13 y female 400 IU/L; 13–15 y male 500 IU/L; 20–50 y 100 IU/L; other childhood age 300 IU/L.
Δ: ALP cut-off: 0–17 y 400 IU/L; >17 y 105 IU/L.
Main characteristics and results of the eligible studies for evaluation of presence of metastasis at diagnosis.
| Study | Country | Number of patients | Age (y) | ALP cut-off (IU/L) | Enneking stage | RR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacci et al., 1993 [ | Italy | 549 | NA | A§ | II-III | 5.53 (2.85–10.74) |
| Wu et al., 2009 [ | Taiwan ROC | 91 | 20.2 (5–84) | A§ | II-III | 16.5 (1.05–260.27) |
| Hung et al., 2015 [ | Taiwan ROC | 76 | 13.5 (3.8–17.7) | 150 | II-III | 18.6 (1.17–294.97) |
NA: not available, A: available (see the footnotes for details), RR: relative risk, and CI: confidence interval.
§: ALP cut-off: 2–10 y 350 IU/L; 10–13 y female 400 IU/L; 13–15 y male 500 IU/L; 20–50 y 100 IU/L; other childhood age 300 IU/L.
Figure 2Forest plot showing the association between SALP and overall survival (OS) of osteosarcoma.
Figure 3Forest plot showing the association between SALP and event-free survival (EFS) of osteosarcoma.
Figure 4Forest plot showing the association between SALP and presence of metastasis of osteosarcoma at diagnosis.
Figure 5Forest plot showing the association between SALP and occurrence of metastasis for nonmetastatic osteosarcoma patients.
A summary of HRs for the overall and subgroup analyses of SALP and OS of osteosarcoma patients.
| Number of studies | Patients number | HR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-squared |
|
| ||||
| Overall | 17 | 2272 | 1.82 (1.61–2.06) | 13.68 | 0% | 0.622 |
| Age | ||||||
| Preadult and adult | 14 | 2088 | 1.82 (1.60–2.06) | 10.83 | 0% | 0.625 |
| Preadult only | 3 | 184 | 1.87 (1.20–2.91) | 2.84 | 2.96% | 0.242 |
| Enneking stage | ||||||
| II | 7 | 910 | 1.75 (1.42–2.15) | 3.53 | 0% | 0.740 |
| II-III | 8 | 1211 | 1.77 (1.61–2.06) | 6.02 | 0% | 0.538 |
| III | 2 | 151 | 2.67 (1.75–4.06) | 0.71 | 0% | 0.400 |
| Sample size | ||||||
| <100 | 11 | 751 | 2.13 (1.70–2.66) | 10.94 | 8.6% | 0.362 |
| >100 | 6 | 1521 | 1.71 (1.48–1.98) | 0.20 | 0% | 0.999 |
| Geographic region | ||||||
| Asia | 6 | 734 | 1.89 (1.55–2.31) | 4.16 | 0% | 0.527 |
| Non-Asia | 11 | 1538 | 1.78 (1.53–2.07) | 9.29 | 0% | 0.505 |
HR: hazard ratio, OS: overall survival, and CI: confidence interval.
A summary of HRs for the overall and subgroup analyses of SALP and EFS of osteosarcoma patients.
| Number of studies | Patients number | HR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-squared |
|
| ||||
| Overall | 7 | 752 | 1.97 (1.61–2.42) | 7.65 | 21.6% | 0.265 |
| Age | ||||||
| Preadult and adult | 4 | 385 | 1.90 (1.45–2.48) | 5.33 | 43.7% | 0.149 |
| Preadult only | 3 | 367 | 2.07 (1.51–2.83) | 2.15 | 7.1% | 0.341 |
| Enneking stage | ||||||
| II | 3 | 321 | 1.88 (1.29–2.73) | 1.91 | 0% | 0.386 |
| II-III | 2 | 292 | 1.63 (1.19–2.23) | 1.32 | 24.3% | 0.250 |
| III | 2 | 139 | 2.77 (1.88–4.09) | 0.01 | 0% | 0.906 |
| Sample size | ||||||
| <100 | 5 | 306 | 2.28 (1.68–3.09) | 6.09 | 34.3% | 0.193 |
| >100 | 2 | 446 | 1.75 (1.33–2.31) | 0.02 | 0% | 0.89 |
| Geographic region | ||||||
| Asia | 2 | 112 | 2.34 (1.19–4.60) | 1.34 | 25.2% | 0.248 |
| Non-Asia | 5 | 640 | 1.94 (1.56–2.40) | 6.05 | 33.8% | 0.196 |
HR: Hazard ratio, EFS: event-free survival, and CI: confidence interval.
Figure 6Funnel plots assessing possible publication bias for prognosis ((a) OS; (b) EFS; (c) presence of metastasis at diagnosis; (d) metastasis development for nonmetastatic patients).
Figure 7Sensitivity analysis for prognosis of survival rates ((a) OS; (b) EFS).