| Literature DB >> 27911867 |
Zhaoli Chen1, Xuejiao Shi1, Lanwei Guo2, Yuan Li1, Mei Luo1, Jie He1.
Abstract
Ten-eleven translocation (TET) enzymes catalyze the oxidation of 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC) and then to 5-formylcytosine (5-fC) and 5-carboxylcytosine (5-caC), resulting in genomic DNA demethylation. Decreased 5-hmC levels have been reported in a variety of cancers, and loss of 5-hmC might be considered an epigenetic hallmark of cancer. However, the prognostic value of decreased 5-hmC in cancers remain controversial. Here, a systematic review was performed by conducting an electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Finally, ten studies with a total of 1736 patients with cancer were included in the present study. Negative/low 5-hmC levels were significantly associated with lymph node metastasis [OR=2.20, 95% CI=1.23-3.96, P=0.008] and advanced TNM stage [OR=2.89, 95% CI=1.21-6.92, P=0.017]. More importantly, negative/low 5-hmC levels were significantly associated with poor prognosis of cancer patients [overall survival: HR=1.76, 95% CI=1.41-2.11, P < 0.001; disease free survival: HR=1.28, 95% CI=0.60-1.96, P < 0.001]. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that decreased 5-hmC levels are an indicator of poor survival of cancer patients. Given variability related to ethnicity, cancer types and detection methods, additional well-designed studies with larger sample sizes are required to further confirm our findings.Entities:
Keywords: 5-hydroxymethylcytosine; cancer staging; disease-free survival; meta-analysis; overall survival
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27911867 PMCID: PMC5352110 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13719
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow diagram of the selection process
The characteristics of the included studies
| Author | Year | Country | Cancer type | Patients' number | Detection methods | Cut-off for 5-hmC low expression |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orr | 2012 | America | Glioblastoma | 69 | IHC | H-score in the first quartile |
| Yang | 2013 | China | GC | 108 | DNA dot blot | < median value |
| Liu | 2014 | China | HCC | 318 | IHC | < median value |
| Murata | 2015 | Japan | ESCC | 95 | ELISA | < median value |
| Strand | 2015 | Denmark | PC | 311 | IHC | Scores 0 and 1 were considered as low expression |
| Zhang | 2015 | China | EOC | 130 | IHC | − and + were considered as low expression |
| Dong | 2015 | China | ICC | 123 | IHC | NR |
| Chen | 2015 | China | Kidney cancer | 185 | IHC | ≤10% cells are positive for IHC staining |
| Tsai | 2015 | China | Breast cancer | 257 | IHC | The score range from 0-7, the cutoff set at a value of 3 |
| Zhang | 2016 | China | CSCC | 140 | IHC | − and + were considered as low expression |
Abbreviations: HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; GC, gastric cancer; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; PC, prostate cancer; EOC, epithelial ovarian cancer; ICC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; CSCC, cervical squamous cell carcinoma; NR, not reported; IHC, immunohistochemistry; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
The clinicopathological characteristics of the cases with positive/high 5-hmC and cases with the negative/low 5-hmC in tumor tissues
| Study | Year | Cases (positive/high 5-hmC) | Cases (negative/low 5-hmC) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | N0 | N1 | I/II | III/IV | G1/2 | G3/4 | Total | N0 | N1 | I/II | III/IV | G1/2 | G3/4 | ||
| Yang | 2013 | 50 | 27 | 23 | 30 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 58 | 15 | 43 | 13 | 45 | 27 | 31 |
| Liu | 2014 | 159 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 115 | 44 | 159 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 129 | 30 |
| Murata | 2015 | 48/46 | 14 | 34 | 19 | 27 | 43 | 5 | 47/46 | 16 | 31 | 20 | 26 | 32 | 15 |
| Zhang | 2015 | 34 | 18 | 16 | 23 | 11 | 30 | 4 | 96 | 29 | 67 | 34 | 62 | 67 | 29 |
| Dong | 2015 | 20 | 19 | 1 | 18 | 2 | 9 | 11 | 103 | 74 | 29 | 68 | 35 | 52 | 51 |
| Zhang | 2016 | 43 | 32 | 11 | NR | NR | 35 | 8 | 97 | 55 | 42 | NR | NR | 56 | 41 |
The HR value and 95%CI of OS and DFS in each study
| Study | Year | OS | DFS | Survival results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI | HR | 95%CI | |||
| Orr | 2012 | 2.28 | 1.16-4.49 | NA | NA | poor |
| Yang | 2013 | 2.55 | 1.30-4.98 | NA | NA | poor |
| Liu | 2014 | 3.16 | 2.12-4.74 | NA | NA | poor |
| Chen | 2015 | 2.22 | 1.19-4.17 | NA | NA | poor |
| Dong | 2015 | 1.45 | 1.08-1.93 | 1.36 | 1.02-1.81 | poor |
| Strand | 2015 | NA | NA | 0.62 | 0.44-0.87 | well |
| Tsai | 2015 | NA | NA | 1.90 | 1.20-3.02 | poor |
| Zhang | 2015 | 2.03 | 1.22-3.46 | NA | NA | poor |
| Zhang | 2016 | 2.02 | 0.93-7.16 | 2.56 | 1.06-6.24 | poor |
Figure 2Correlation of 5-hmC levels and cancer stages
A. Forest plots of the association between negative/low 5-hmC levels and lymph node metastasis (positive vs negative). B. Forest plots of the association between negative/low 5-hmC levels and TNM stage (III/IV stage vs I/II stage). C. Forest plots of the association between negative/low 5-hmC levels and histological differentiation grade (poor vs well/moderate). The squares and horizontal lines correspond to the study-specific OR and 95% CI, respectively. The area of the squares reflects the weight (inverse of the variance). The diamond represents the summary OR and 95% CI.
Figure 3Prognostic value of negative/low 5-hmC levels in patients with cancer
A. Meta-analysis of the association between negative/low 5-hmC levels and overall survival in various cancers. B. Meta-analysis of the association between negative/low 5-hmC levels and disease-free survival in various cancers.
Figure 4Stratified analyses of the association between 5-hmC levels and lymph node metastasis A., TNM stage B., and histological differentiation grade C. were performed by detection methods
Figure 5The Begg's funnel plots and Egger's publication bias plots assessing the publication bias in analyses of the association of 5-hmC levels with lymph node metastasis A., TNM stage B., overall survival C., and disease-free survival D