| Literature DB >> 27880940 |
Yanyang Zhang1, Xinguang Yu1, Ling Chen1, Zhibin Zhang1, Shiyu Feng1.
Abstract
Previous studies have investigated the prognostic value of enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) expression in patients with glioma but conclude contradictory results. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the prognostic role of EZH2 in glioma by meta-analysis. The databases of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were combined to assess the association between EZH2 and overall survival (OS) as well as progression-free survival (PFS). Odd ratio (OR) and 95% CI were calculated to investigate the relevance of EZH2 on clinical factors. Six studies with 575 patients were included for meta-analysis. The results showed that EZH2 overexpression was correlated with poor OS (n = 6, HR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.56-3.19, p < 0.001) and PFS (n = 3, HR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.56-3.19, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that EZH2 had enhanced prognostic value in Asian patients, for WHO grade I-IV and when using immunohistochemistry (IHC) method. In addition, EZH2 was associated with KPS score < 80. No evidence of publication bias was found in this meta-analysis. In conclusion, the present study showed that EZH2 was a potential prognostic marker for poor OS, PFS and lower KPS score in glioma patients.Entities:
Keywords: EZH2; biomarker; glioma; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27880940 PMCID: PMC5352178 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13478
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow chart for selection of studies
Characteristics of included studies into meta-analysis
| Study | Year | Country | Patients (n) | Age(years) Mean(range) | Histological type | WHO grade | Therapy | Study duration | Survival outcomes | Method | Positive (%) | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wu | 2013 | China | 128 | 42(12–71) | Glioma | I-IV | Surgical resection | 2000–2010 | OS | IHC | 62.5 | 8 |
| Ailon | 2015 | Canada | 201 | 7(0.4–15.8) | Glioma | II-III | Surgical resection | 1986–2006 | OS,PFS | IHC | NA | 7 |
| Zhang | 2015 | China | 83 | 43 | Glioblastoma | IV | Surgical resection | 2006–2009 | OS | Genetic testing | 51.8 | 6 |
| Ahmed | 2016 | Egypt | 40 | 40(7–72) | Glioma | I-IV | Surgical resection | 2011–2014 | OS,PFS | IHC | 55 | 7 |
| Purkait | 2016 | India | 51 | NA | Glioblastoma | IV | Surgical resection | 2009–2014 | OS,PFS | IHC | 94.3 | 7 |
| Wiese | 2016 | Germany | 72 | 3–21 | Glioblastoma | IV | NA | NA | OS | Genetic testing | 47.3 | 6 |
NA: not available; OS: overall survival; PFS: progression-free survival; IHC: immunohistochemistry staining; NOS score: the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score.
Figure 2Forest plot of the association between EZH2 and (A) OS and (B) PFS in glioma patients
Meta-analysis of EZH2 expression and survival of glioma patients
| Factors | Studies (n) | Patients (n) | Effects model | HR (95%CI) | Heterogenicity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2(%) | Ph | ||||||
| OS | 6 | 575 | Random | 2.18 (1.25–3.8) | 0.006 | 72.7 | 0.003 |
| Region | |||||||
| Asian countries | 3 | 262 | Fixed | 2.83 (1.88–4.26) | < 0.001 | 21.9 | 0.278 |
| Non-Asian countries | 3 | 313 | Random | 1.56 (0.73–3.36) | 0.253 | 70.9 | 0.032 |
| WHO grade | |||||||
| I-IV | 3 | 369 | Random | 3.07 (1.1–8.57) | 0.033 | 80 | 0.007 |
| IV | 3 | 206 | Random | 1.73 (0.86–3.39) | 0.127 | 66.1 | 0.052 |
| Method | |||||||
| IHC | 4 | 420 | Random | 3.19 (1.39–7.3) | 0.006 | 72.9 | 0.011 |
| Genetic testing | 2 | 155 | Random | 1.34 (0.73–2.46) | 0.344 | 57.2 | 0.126 |
| PFS | 3 | 292 | Fixed | 2.23 (1.56–3.19) | < 0.001 | 24 | 0.268 |
Association between EZH2 and clinicalpathological features in glioma patients
| Factors | Studies (n) | Patients (n) | Effects model | OR (95%CI) | Heterogeneity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2(%) | Ph | ||||||
| KPS score (< 80 vs ≥ 80) | 3 | 251 | Random | 5.25(1.35–20.44) | 0.017 | 79.4 | 0.008 |
| Gender (male vs female) | 3 | 251 | Fixed | 1.04(0.62–1.73) | 0.883 | 0 | 0.547 |
| Age (≥ 55 years vs < 55 years) | 2 | 168 | Random | 2.2(0.44–10.91) | 0.335 | 77 | 0.037 |
Figure 3Meta-analysis of correlation between EZH2 expression and clinical factors in glioma
(A) KPS score, (B) gender, and (C) age.
Figure 4Sensitivity analysis of EZH2 and (A) OS and (B) PFS
Figure 5Publication bias test
(A) Begg's funnel plot for OS, p = 0.133, (B) Egger's test for OS, p = 0.081; (C) Begg's funnel plot for PFS, p = 0.296; (D) Egger's test for PFS, p = 0.063.