| Literature DB >> 26729052 |
Guo-Zhong Yi1, Wen-Yan Feng2, Qiang Zhou1, Ya-Wei Liu1, Song-Tao Qi3.
Abstract
So far, the prognostic value of matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP-2) and tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 2 (TIMP-2) expressions in patients with gliomas has been widely reported, especially in China. But, the results were inconsistent. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the correlation of MMP-2 and TIMP-2 expressions with the prognosis of patients with gliomas. Identical search strategies were used to search relevant literature in electronic databases updated to May 1, 2015, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were estimated. Funnel plots and Egger's tests were conducted for the evaluation of publication bias, and heterogeneity and sensitivity were also analyzed. Finally, a total of 25 studies involving 1572 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Coincidentally, all these studies were conducted in Chinese population. It was found that MMP-2 expression was significantly associated with high-WHO grade gliomas (n = 24, OR = 6.54, CI = 4.98-8.60; I 2 = 0 %, P = 0.911) and poor overall survival (OS), while it did not correlate to age (n = 2, OR = 0.78, CI = 0.35-1.74; I 2 = 0 %, P = 0.621) and gender (n = 2, OR = 1.15, CI = 0.51-2.62; I 2 = 0 %, P = 0.995). Moreover, the results of the pooled analysis indicated that there was no association between TIMP-2 expression and the WHO grade of gliomas (n = 7, OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.68-1.54; I 2 = 71.4 %, P = 0.002), but the ratio of MMP-2 and TIMP-2 (MMP-2/TIMP-2) rose with the increase of the WHO grade of gliomas. In conclusion, there was no correlation between TIMP-2 expression and the WHO grade of gliomas, while MMP-2 expression was potently associated with high-WHO grade of gliomas.Entities:
Keywords: Gliomas; MMP-2; Meta-analysis; Prognosis; TIMP-2; WHO grade
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26729052 PMCID: PMC5219888 DOI: 10.1007/s12035-015-9539-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Neurobiol ISSN: 0893-7648 Impact factor: 5.590
Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale
| Selection |
|---|
| 1. Representativeness of the exposed cohort |
| (a) Truly representative of the average glioma patients in the community* |
| (b) Somewhat representative of the average glioma patients in the community* |
| (c) Selected group of users (e.g., nurses, volunteers) |
| (d) No description of the derivation of the 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 nonexposed cohort |
| 3. Ascertainment of exposure (proof of gliomas and MMP-2 or TIMP-2 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, 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 (24 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 numbered item within the “selection” and “outcome” categories, while a maximum of two stars (**) can be given for “comparability”
Fig. 1Flow chart of study selection
Characteristics of included studies
| Study ID | Sample size (I–II/III–IV) | Mean age | Male/female | Method | Cutoff of high expression | MMP-2 positive (I–II/III–IV) | TIMP-2 positive (I–II/III–IV) | Study quality (points) | Follow-up (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sui R [ | 120 (70/50) | 54.6 | 82/38 | IHC | Score = 1 | 92 (46/46) | NA | 7/9 | NA |
| Zeng ZQ [ | 64 (28/36) | 38.8 | 38/26 | IHC | Score = 2 | 43 (15/28) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Guo GH [ | 40 (23/17) | 45.9 | 26/14 | IHC | 5 % | 24 (9/15) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Wu HF [ | 45 (20/25) | 42.3 | 31/14 | IHC | 10 % | 21 (5/16) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Pan LK [ | 50 (24/26) | 46.3 | 32/18 | IHC | 10 % | 37 (14/23) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Li B [ | 52 (32/20) | 47.6 | 34/18 | IHC | 10 % | 22 (9/13) | 23 (15/8) | 6/9 | NA |
| Jv HG [ | 78 (43/35) | 42.4 | 48/30 | IHC | Score = 1 | 50 (21/29) | 46 (21/25) | 6/9 | NA |
| Liu Q [ | 60 (27/33) | 40.2 | 32/28 | IHC | Score = 2 | 49 (19/30) | NA | 7/9 | NA |
| Sun SW [ | 45 (20/25) | 40.2 | 24/21 | IHC | Score = 2 | 36 (13/23) | 24 (9/15) | 6/9 | NA |
| Zhao YF [ | 50 (17/33) | 40.0 | 28/22 | IHC | 10 % | 34 (8/26) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Song LJ [ | 100 (47/53) | 42.3 | 58/42 | IHC | Score = 1 | 76 (24/52) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Kong LF [ | 135 (64/71) | 34.8 | 76/59 | IHC | 5 % | 49 (11/38) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Lv ZH [ | 30 (12/18) | 41.3 | 12/18 | IHC | 10 % | 17 (3/14) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Zhou R [ | 67 (27/40) | 43.1 | 40/27 | IHC | 10 % | 41 (10/31) | 41 (22/19) | 6/9 | NA |
| Li Hao [ | 50 (23/27) | 48.7 | 28/22 | IHC | Local staining | 39 (13/26) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Li Hong [ | 119 (55/64) | 42.0 | 66/53 | IHC | Score = 1 | NA | 106 (45/61) | 7/9 | NA |
| Wang YT [ | 45 (20/25) | 40.2 | 21/22 | IHC | Score = 1 | 36 (13/23) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Liu ZL [ | 50 (16/34) | 40.4 | 27/23 | IHC | Score = 1 | 46 (13/33) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Tan YL [ | 68 (33/35) | 38.1 | 37/31 | IHC | Score = 1 | 49 (16/33) | NA | 7/9 | NA |
| Shi QH [ | 46 (21/25) | 42.5 | 26/20 | IHC | Local staining | 28 (8/20) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Yi ZQ [ | 46 (22/24) | 38.5 | 26/20 | IHC | 5 % | 37 (14/23) | 17 (8/9) | 7/9 | NA |
| Li J [ | 46 (30/16) | 38.5 | 30/16 | IHC | 5 % | 20 (7/13) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
| Xiao QH [ | 60 (20/40) | 35.0 | 42/18 | IHC | 5 % | 15 (1/14) | NA | 8/9 | >24 M |
| Luo GC [ | 56 (25/31) | 34.8 | 33/23 | IHC | 5 % | 47 (18/29) | 42 (22/20) | 6/9 | NA |
| [ | 50 (25/25) | 48.5 | 27/23 | IHC | 25 % | 22 (8/14) | NA | 6/9 | NA |
Tumor grade was described on the basis of the World Health Organization (WHO) grading system of primary brain tumors and divided into two groups: low grade (I–II) and high grade (III–IV)
IHC immunohistochemistry, NA not available
Fig. 2Forest plot of association between MMP-2 expression and the WHO grade of gliomas
Fig. 3Forest plot of association between MMP-2 expression and gender, age
Fig. 4Forest plot of association between TIMP-2 expression and the WHO grade of gliomas (a) and association between MMP-2 expression and glioma grade in studies which have also reported TIMP-2 expression (b)
Fig. 5Funnel plots and sensitivity analysis of the meta-analysis. Funnel plots of the meta-analysis assessing a MMP-2 expression and glioma grade and b TIMP-2 expression and glioma grade and sensitivity analysis of the meta-analysis assessing c MMP-2 expression and glioma grade and d TIMP-2 expression and glioma grade