| Literature DB >> 27857175 |
Nan Chen1, Shu Wen1, Xiaoru Sun1, Qian Fang1, Lin Huang1, Shuai Liu1, Wanling Li1, Meng Qiu1,2.
Abstract
Previous studies have suggested that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number was associated with cancer risk. However, no solid conclusion revealed the potential predictive value of mtDNA copy number for cancer prognosis. The present meta-analysis was performed to clarify the problem. Hence, we performed a systematic search in PubMed, EmBase, Web of Science databases independently and a total of eighteen studies comprising 3961 cases satisfied the criteria and finally enrolled. Our results didn't show the association between them but significant heterogeneity in overall analysis (OS: HR = 0.923, 95% CI: 0.653-1.306, p = 0.652; DFS: HR = 0.997, 95% CI: 0.599-1.659, p = 0.99). However, subgroup analysis stratified by sample came to the opposite conclusion. High level mitochondrial DNA copy number in peripheral blood predicted a poor cancer prognosis (OS: HR = 1.624, 95% CI: 1.211-2.177, p = 0.001; DFS: HR = 1.582, 95% CI: 1.026-2.439, p = 0.038) while patients with high level mitochondrial DNA copy number in tumor tissue exhibited better outcomes (OS: HR = 0.604 95% CI: 0.406-0.899, p = 0.013; DFS: HR = 0.593, 95% CI: 0.411-0.857, p = 0.005). These findings were further proved in detailed analyses in blood or tissue subgroup. In conclusion, our study suggested the elevated mtDNA copy number in peripheral blood predicted a poor cancer prognosis while the better outcome was presented among patients with elevated mtDNA copy number in tumor tissue.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27857175 PMCID: PMC5114650 DOI: 10.1038/srep37404
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flow chart of the literature selection.
The baseline characteristics of included studies.
| Author, year | Ethnicity | Cancer type | Sample | Na | Male | Female | Survival | Analysis | mtDNA gene | nDNA gene | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bai | Asian | Breast cancer | Tissue | 148 | 0 | 148 | OS | MV | tRNA-Leu (UUR) | B2M | 4 |
| Chang | Asian | Colorectal cancer | Tissue | 194 | 134 | 60 | DFS | MV | MT-CYB | RNase P gene | 9 |
| Chen | Asian | Glioma | Blood | 336 | 189 | 147 | OS/PFS | MV | MT-ND1 | HGB | 7 |
| Cui | Asian | Colorectal cancer | Tissue | 60 | 30 | 30 | OS | UV | MT-ND1 | β-actin | 9 |
| Dang | Asian | Laryngeal cancer | Tissue | 204 | 197 | 7 | OS | MV | MT-ND2 | β-actin | 9 |
| Feng, 2015 | Asian | Cervical cancer | Tissue | 122b | NA | NA | OS | MV | NC_012920 region | B2M | 8 |
| He | Asian | HCC | Blood | 618 | 544 | 74 | OS/DFS | MV | MT-ND1 | HGB | 9 |
| Lee | Asian | Gastric cancer | Tissue | 109 | 82 | 27 | OS/DFS | UV | MT-COX1 | β-actin | 6 |
| Lin | Asian | Head and neck cancer | Blood | 75 | 75 | 0 | OS | UV | MT-tRNAleu | 18 S | 6 |
| Mohideen | Caucasian | Colorectal cancer | Blood | 273c | 160 | 116 | OS/DFS | MV | MT-ND2 | FASLG | 8 |
| Osch | Caucasian | Colorectal cancer | Tissue | 655c | 372 | 306 | OS | UV | D-loop | B2M | 8 |
| Qu | Asian | Colorectal cancer | Blood | 598 | 328 | 270 | OS/DFS | MV/UV | MT-ND1 | HGB | 8 |
| Tu, 2015 | Caucasian | Prostate cancer | Blood | 1266 | 1266 | 0 | PFS | MV | MT-ND1 | HGB | 7 |
| Wang | Asian | Colorectal cancer | Tissue | 124c | 72 | 90 | OS | UV | MT-ND1 | β-actin | 7 |
| Weerts | Caucasian | Breast cancer | Tissue | 186b | NA | NA | DMFS | MV | MT-TL1 | HMBS | 7 |
| Xu | Asian | NSCLC | Tissue | 128 | 95 | 33 | OS | MV | NC_012920 region | B2M | 8 |
| Yamada | Asian | HCC | Tissue | 31 | 27 | 4 | OS | UV | mtDNA | β-actin | 8 |
| Yu | Asian | Breast cancer | Tissue | 59 | 0 | 59 | OS/DFS | UV | D-loop | β-actin | 6 |
| Zhang | Asian | Gastric cancer | Tissue | 103 | 84 | 19 | OS | MV | MT-ND1 | β-actin | 8 |
| Zhang | Asian | Glioma | Tissue | 124 | 68 | 56 | OS | MV | MT-ND1 | β-actin | 8 |
aNumber of included patients; bUnknown information of gender; cexisting missing data.
NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale; OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; PFS: progression-free survival; DMFS: distant metastasis-free survival; MV: multivariate analysis; UV: univariate analysis; NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma.
The pooled data on survival of meta-analysis.
| Variables | Na | Caseb | Pooled data | Heterogeneity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P | |||||
| Dichotomous variables (High level vs. Low level) | ||||||
| OS | ||||||
| Overall | 14 | 3312 | 0.923 (0.653, 1.306) | 0.652 | 85.40% | <0.001 |
| By ethnicity | ||||||
| Asian | 11 | 2380 | 0.928 (0.614, 1.402) | 0.722 | 85.80% | <0.001 |
| Caucasian | 2 | 928 | 0.841 (0.660, 1.071) | 0.159 | 0% | 0.709 |
| By cancer | ||||||
| Digestive system | 7 | 2468 | 1.158 (0.789, 1.700) | 0.453 | 80.40% | <0.001 |
| Other | 6 | 844 | 0.709 (0.352, 1.427) | 0.335 | 88.80% | <0.001 |
| By case number | ||||||
| >200 | 5 | 2604 | 1.340 (0.934, 1.921) | 0.112 | 85.70% | <0.001 |
| <200 | 8 | 708 | 0.679 (0.388, 1.186) | 0.173 | 77.60% | <0.001 |
| By analysis method | ||||||
| MV | 7 | 2199 | 0.899 (0.556, 1.455) | 0.666 | 90.80% | <0.001 |
| UV | 6 | 1113 | 0.955 (0.573, 1.590) | 0.858 | 67.40% | 0.005 |
| By NOS score | ||||||
| High quality | 10 | 3069 | 0.878 (0.596, 1.292) | 0.508 | 87.50% | <0.001 |
| Low quality | 3 | 243 | 1.127 (0.423, 2.999) | 0.811 | 77.40% | 0.012 |
| By sample | ||||||
| Blood | 5 | 1900 | 71.90% | 0.007 | ||
| Tissue | 9 | 1412 | 65.10% | 0.003 | ||
| DFS | ||||||
| Overall | 6 | 1850 | 0.997 (0.599, 1.659) | 0.99 | 85.60% | <0.001 |
| By ethnicity | ||||||
| Asian | 5 | 1578 | 0.964 (0.508, 1.828) | 0.909 | 87.50% | <0.001 |
| Caucasian | 1 | 272 | 1.010 (0.690, 1.479) | 0.959 | — | — |
| By cancer | ||||||
| Digestive system | 5 | 1791 | 1.127 (0.672, 1.891) | 0.65 | 86.50% | <0.001 |
| Other | 1 | 59 | 0.399 (0.138, 1.151) | 0.089 | — | — |
| By case number | ||||||
| >200 | 3 | 1488 | 1.582 (1.026, 2.439) | 0.038 | 78.40% | 0.01 |
| <200 | 3 | 362 | 0.593 (0.411, 0.857) | 0.005 | 0% | 0.546 |
| By analysis method | ||||||
| MV | 3 | 1084 | 1.073 (0.605, 1.902) | 0.809 | 83.40% | 0.002 |
| UV | 3 | 766 | 0.753 (0.204, 2.789) | 0.672 | 86.20% | 0.001 |
| By NOS score | ||||||
| High quality | 4 | 1682 | 1.274 (0.754, 2.153) | 0.365 | 88.20% | <0.001 |
| Blood quality | 2 | 168 | 0.398 (0.178, 0.887) | 0.024 | 0.00% | 0.993 |
| By sample | ||||||
| Blood | 3 | 1488 | 78.40% | 0.01 | ||
| Tissue | 3 | 362 | 0% | 0.546 | ||
| Three categorical variables | ||||||
| Low level vs. middle level | 3 | NA | 1.456 (0.556, 3.811) | 0.444 | 71.90% | 0.029 |
| High level vs. middle level | 3 | NA | 1.654 (0.875, 3.124) | 0.121 | 38.70% | 0.195 |
aNumbers of studies included in the meta-analysis; bNumber of included patients.
NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale; OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; MV: multivariate analysis; UV: univariate analysis; HR: hazard ratio; 95% CI: confidence interval; P: p value of pooled HR; I2: value of Higgins I-squared statistics; Ph: p value of Heterogeneity test; NA: not available.
Figure 2Forest plot of meta-analysis of prognostic role of mtDNA copy number for OS (a) or DFS (b) stratified by sample.
The pooled data on survival of detailed analyses in blood or tissue subgroup.
| Variables | Na | Caseb | Pooled data | Heterogeneity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P | |||||
| OS for tissue group | 9 | 1412 | 0.604 (0.406, 0.899) | 0.013 | 65.10% | 0.003 |
| By ethnicity | ||||||
| Asian | 8 | 757 | 0.567 (0.350, 0.918) | 0.021 | 64.70% | 0.006 |
| Caucasian | 1 | 655 | 0.810 (0.594, 1.105) | 0.184 | — | — |
| By cancer | ||||||
| Digestive system | 5 | 979 | 0.890 (0.540, 1.467) | 0.649 | 49% | 0.095 |
| other | 4 | 433 | 0.418 (0.302, 0.578) | <0.001 | 0% | 0.422 |
| By analysis | ||||||
| MV | 3 | 374 | 0.402 (0.266, 0.607) | <0.001 | 25.30% | 0.252 |
| UV | 6 | 1038 | 0.811 (0.518, 1.269) | 0.359 | 47.60% | 0.089 |
| By case number | ||||||
| >200 | 1 | 655 | 0.810 (0.594, 1.105) | 0.810 | — | — |
| <200 | 8 | 757 | 0.567 (0.350, 0.918) | 0.021 | 64.70% | 0.006 |
| By NOS score | ||||||
| High quality | 7 | 1244 | 0.575 (0.356, 0.928) | 0.023 | 71.80% | 0.002 |
| Low quality | 2 | 168 | 0.718 (0.337, 1.528) | 0.39 | 35.30% | 0.214 |
| OS for blood group | 5 | 1900 | 1.624 (1.211, 2.177) | 0.001 | 71.90% | 0.007 |
| By ethnicity | ||||||
| Asian | 4 | 1627 | 1.834 (1.564, 2.150) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.46 |
| Caucasian | 1 | 273 | 0.890 (0.606, 1.307) | 0.552 | — | — |
| By cancer | ||||||
| Digestive system | 3 | 1489 | 1.519 (0.978, 2.359) | 0.063 | 83.80% | 0.002 |
| Other | 2 | 411 | 1,805 (1.116, 2.919) | 0.016 | 45.40% | 0.176 |
| By analysis method | ||||||
| MV | 4 | 1825 | 1.532 (1.122, 2.092) | 0.007 | 76.10% | 0.006 |
| UV | 1 | 75 | 2.598 (1.284, 5.256) | 0.008 | — | — |
| By case number | ||||||
| >200 | 4 | 1825 | 1.532 (1.122, 2.092) | 0.007 | 76.10% | 0.006 |
| <200 | 1 | 75 | 2.598 (1.284, 5.256) | 0.008 | — | — |
| By NOS score | ||||||
| High quality | 4 | 1825 | 1.532 (1.122, 2.092) | 0.007 | 76.10% | 0.006 |
| Low quality | 1 | 75 | 2.598 (1.284, 5.256) | 0.008 | — | — |
| DFS for tissue group | 3 | 362 | 0.593 (0.411, 0.857) | 0.005 | 0% | 0.546 |
| By cancer | ||||||
| Digestive system | 2 | 303 | 0.626 (0.423, 0.927) | 0.019 | 0% | 0.44 |
| other | 1 | 59 | 0.399 (0.138, 1.151) | 0.089 | — | — |
| By analysis method | ||||||
| MV | 1 | 194 | 0.660 (0.436, 0.999) | 0.049 | — | — |
| UV | 2 | 168 | 0.398 (0.178, 0.887) | 0.024 | 0% | 0.993 |
| By NOS score | ||||||
| High quality | 1 | 194 | 0.660 (0.436, 0.999) | 0.049 | — | — |
| Low quality | 2 | 168 | 0.398 (0.178, 0.887) | 0.024 | 0% | 0.993 |
| DFS for blood group | 3 | 1488 | 1.582 (1.026, 2.439) | 0.038 | 78.40% | 0.01 |
| By ethnicity | ||||||
| Asian | 2 | 1216 | 1.989 (1.598, 2.476) | <0.001 | 0% | 0.712 |
| Caucasian | 1 | 272 | 1.010 (0.690, 1.479) | 0.959 | — | — |
| By analysis | ||||||
| MV | 2 | 890 | 1.362 (0.749, 2.477) | 0.311 | 77.60% | 0.035 |
| UV | 1 | 598 | 2.040 (1.578, 2.637) | <0.001 | — | — |
aNumbers of studies included in the meta-analysis; bNumber of included patients.
NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale; OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; HR: hazard ratio; MV: multivariate analysis; UV: univariate analysis; 95% CI: confidence interval; P: p value of pooled HR; I2: value of Higgins I-squared statistics; Ph: p value of Heterogeneity test.
Figure 3Begg’s funnel plot (a) and Egger’s linear regression tests (b) for publication bias.