| Literature DB >> 27150062 |
Qingbao Li1, Fang Liu2, Yuan Zhang3, Lei Fu4, Cong Wang5, Xuan Chen5, Shanghui Guan5, Xiangjiao Meng4.
Abstract
Up to now, the prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poor. With progress of cancer biology, a number of genes have been investigated for predicting prognosis of NSCLC, such as cancer stem cell markers SRY (sex determining region Y)-box 2 (SOX2) and Nestin. Recently, a series of studies have been performed to examine the associations of SOX2 and Nestin with clinical parameters and prognosis in NSCLC, however, the results were not consistent. In the present study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the associations. Four English databases (PubMed, ISI web of science, Embase, and Ovid) were used to search the relevant studies with the last date of November 10, 2015. The pooling analyses were stratified by DNA amplification and protein expression. The pooling ORs or HRs were used to assess the strength of the associations. Finally, we included 19 articles for SOX2 and six articles for Nestin according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooling analyses revealed that there were significant associations between SOX2 DNA amplification and clinical features of NSCLC, gender, smoking status, squamous cell cancer (SCC) histology, and differentiations. And significant associations were also identified between SOX2 protein expression and clinical parameters, smoking status and SCC histology. For Nestin, its protein expression was correlated with lymph node metastasis and stage. Simultaneously, we found that high/positive SOX2 alterations, either DNA amplification or protein expression, were favorable for overall survival (OS) in NSCLC. On the contrary, high/positive Nestin protein expression was poor for OS.Entities:
Keywords: Nestin; SOX2; clinical outcome; meta-analysis; non-small cell lung cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27150062 PMCID: PMC5085173 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.9145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow chart of study selection
Characteristics of the included studies
| Reference | Country | Patient No. | Age (year) | Method | Cut-off value | Protein/ | Positive/ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuan et al. 2010 | USA | 57 | IHC | SCC (high > 270, low < 140); ADC (high > 193, low < 10) | Protein | 37/19 | |
| Yuan et al. 2010 | USA | 57 | qPCR | 4 copy | Amplification | 8/49 | |
| Lu et al. 2010 | USA | 40 | IHC | 5% | Protein | 19/21 | |
| Sholl et al. 2010 | USA | 104 | 68(36–91) | IHC | 5% | Protein | 52/52 |
| Sholl et al. 2010 | USA | 66 | IHC | 5% | Protein | 41/25 | |
| Wilbertz et al. 2011 | Switzerland/USA | 758 | FISH | 30% | Amplification | 224/534 | |
| Cai et al. 2011 | China | 115 | 58(27–77) | PCR | Ratio > M + 2SD | Amplification | 30/85 |
| Cai et al. 2011 | China | 150 | 58(27–77) | IHC | 5% | Protein | 79/71 |
| Koji et al. 2011 | Japan | 309 | IHC | 5% | Protein | ||
| Sasaki et al. 2012 | Japan | 127 | 66.0 ± 10.2 | PCR | 4 copy | Amplification | 42/85 |
| Brcic et al. 2012 | American | 147 | IHC | 5% | Protein | 14/52 | |
| Brcic et al. 2012 | American | 147 | FISH | CN/chrom > 2 | Amplification | 18/52 | |
| Li et al. 2012 | China | 44 | IHC | 10% | Protein | 31/13 | |
| Chen et al. 2012 | China | 381 | IHC | 10% | Protein | 374/7 | |
| Velcheti et al. 2013 | Greek | 340 | 62.32 ± 9.04 | IF | Score > 193 | Protein | 418/229 |
| Velcheti et al. 2013 | USA | 307 | 65.17 ± 9.92 | IF | Score > 193 | Protein | |
| Chou et al. 2013 | China | 175 | IHC | No stain in nuclear | Protein | 51/124 | |
| Yusuke et al. 2015 | Japan | 282 | 67(33–86) | FISH | Mean value | Amplification | 34/244 |
| Toschi et al. 2015 | Italy | 447 | FISH | 4 copy or presence of gene cluster | Amplification | 105/340 | |
| Yoon et al. 2015 | Korea | 33 | 66(48–73) | IHC | Internal control | Protein | 22/11 |
| Yoon et al. 2015 | Korea | 33 | 66(48–73) | FISH | 10 green signal | Amplification | 26/7 |
| Iijima et al. 2015 | China cohort | 57 | IHC | H-score > 0 | Protein | 40/17 | |
| Iijima et al. 2015 | Japan cohort | 66 | IHC | H-score > 0 | Protein | 45/21 | |
| Zheng et al. 2015 | China | 162 | 61.6(40–88) | IHC | 100 score | Protein | 85/65 |
| Zheng et al. 2015 | China | 162 | 61.6(40–88) | FISH | 4 gene copy | Amplification | 50/61 |
| Chen et al. 2010 | China | 52 | 58.2 ± 10.0 | IHC | 8.4(median histoscore of | Protein | 25/27 |
| Janikova et al. 2010 | Czech | 121 | IHC | 10% | Protein | 74/38 | |
| Ryuge et al. 2011 | Japan | 173 | 64(34–85) | IHC | 5% | Protein | 27/144 |
| Skarda et al. 2012 | Czech & Israel | 115 | 60.3 | IHC | H-score > 0 | Protein | 40/74 |
| Chen et al. 2014 | China | 71 | 57.6 ± 9.8 | IHC | 8.4(median histoscore of Nestin) | Protein | 35/36 |
| Sterlacci et al. 2014 | Austria | 215 | IHC | Median % positive staining cell | Protein | 57/269 | |
Figure 2Forest plot for associations of SOX2 with clinicopathological features and overall survival in NSCLC
Meta-analysis results
| Clinical parameters | OR/HR | OR/HR95%CI | Model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender(male vs. female) | 8 | R | 0.711 | 0.652 | |||||
| Age (≤ 60 vs. > 60 or ≤ 65 vs. > 65) | 3 | 0.857 | 0.507–1.448 | 0.563 | F | 0.6 | 0.365 | 1.000 | 0.367 |
| Smoking status (yes vs. no) | 7 | R | 0.368 | 0.052 | |||||
| Histology (SCC vs. ADC) | 6 | R | 0.707 | 0.885 | |||||
| Differentiation (moderate+poor vs. well) | 5 | F | 0.0 | 0.935 | 0.462 | 0.629 | |||
| Differentiation (poor vs. well+moderate) | 3 | 0.807 | 0.317–2.054 | 0.654 | R | 1.000 | 0.796 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis (N0 vs. N1–3) | 5 | 0.943 | 0.678–1.312 | 0.728 | F | 0.0 | 0.650 | 0.806 | 0.688 |
| Lymph nodemetastasis (N0–1 vs. N2–3) | 3 | 0.903 | 0.468–1.743 | 0.761 | F | 0.0 | 0.418 | 0.308 | 0.168 |
| Stage (I vs. II–IV) | 5 | 1.222 | 0.860–1.737 | 0.263 | F | 0.0 | 0.855 | 0.221 | 0.363 |
| Stage (I–II vs. III–IV) | 4 | 1.226 | 0.877–1.714 | 0.232 | F | 0.0 | 0.849 | 0.734 | 0.690 |
| OS | 6 | 0.593–0.904 | F | 0.0 | 0.949 | 0.707 | 0.794 | ||
| Gender(male vs. female) | 9 | 1.345 | 0.726–2.493 | 0.558 | R | 0.917 | 0.738 | ||
| Age (≤ 60 vs. > 60 or ≤65 vs. > 65) | 6 | 0.439 | 0.104–1.857 | 0.263 | R | 0.368 | 0.199 | ||
| Smoking status (yes vs. no) | 5 | 1.008–5.001 | R | 0.806 | 0.537 | ||||
| Histology (SCC vs. ADC) | 7 | 2.344–12.610 | R | 1.000 | 0.749 | ||||
| Differentiation (moderate+poor vs. well) | 6 | 1.082 | 0.695–1.685 | 0.726 | F | 0.0 | 0.694 | 1.000 | 0.471 |
| Differentiation (poor vs. well+moderate) | 9 | 0.723 | 0.517–1.011 | 0.058 | F | 14.2 | 0.316 | 1.000 | 0.496 |
| Lymph node metastasis (N0 vs. N1-3) | 3 | 1.078 | 0.649–1.789 | 0.772 | F | 0.0 | 0.693 | 1.000 | 0.952 |
| Lymph nodemetastasis (N0-1 vs. N2-3) | 1 | ||||||||
| Stage (I vs. II–IV) | 4 | 1.288 | 0.807–2.057 | 0.289 | F | 18.4 | 0.298 | 0.734 | 0.959 |
| Stage (I–II vs. III–IV) | 3 | 0.818 | 0.327–2.044 | 0.667 | F | 5.3 | 0.348 | 1.000 | 0.648 |
| OS | 9 | 0.579 | 0.359–0.934 | R | 0.466 | 0.109 | |||
| Gender (male vs. female) | 4 | 0.932 | 0.569–1.527 | 0.780 | F | 11.7 | 0.334 | 0.734 | 0.478 |
| Age (≤ 60 vs. > 60 or ≤ 65 vs. > 65) | 3 | 1.111 | 0.650–1.897 | 0.701 | F | 5.1 | 0.349 | 0.294 | 0.174 |
| Smoking status (yes vs. no) | 3 | 1.237 | 0.486–3.151 | 0.655 | R | 1.000 | 0.145 | ||
| Histology (SCC vs. ADC) | 4 | 2.378 | 0.420–13.462 | 0.327 | R | 0.734 | 0.542 | ||
| Differentiation (well+moderate vs. poor) | 3 | 2.671 | 0.170–41.861 | 0.484 | R | 1.000 | 0.335 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis (N1–3 vs. N0) | 2 | F | 0.0 | 0.694 | |||||
| Stage (II–IV vs. I) | 3 | F | 0.0 | 0.981 | 1.000 | 0.534 | |||
| OS | 5 | R | 0.806 | 0.534 | |||||
Figure 3Forest plot for associations of Nestin with clinicopathological features and overall survival in NSCLC
Figure 4Begg's funnel plot for publication bias analysis