| Literature DB >> 28118613 |
Ping Luo1, Xue-Fang Liu1, Ying-Chao Wang1, Nan-Di Li1, Shen-Jun Liao1, Ming-Xia Yu1, Chun-Zi Liang1, Jian-Cheng Tu1.
Abstract
Ovarian cancer (OC) is the most deadly gynecological cancer and it is urgently needed to find a new marker for the progress of OC. Many long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been reported to be aberrantly expressed in ovarian carcinoma, and may serve as prognostic markers. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the prognostic value of lncRNAs in patients with varian carcinoma. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. A total of 13 eligible studies, including 10 on clinicopathological features, 13 on prognosis were identified. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. Our results revealed that the increased expressions of 8 lncRNAs were associated with poor prognosis and the decreased expressions of 5 lncRNAs were related to poor prognosis in ovarian carcinoma. High HOTAIR expression was associated with shorter overall survival in ovarian cancer (pooled HR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.51-2.77, P < 0.001). In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggested that LncRNAs could function as potential prognostic markers for ovarian cancer patients and high expression HOTAIR was associated with shorter overall survival in ovarian cancer.Entities:
Keywords: long noncoding RNAs; meta-analysis; ovarian cancer; overall survival; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28118613 PMCID: PMC5410355 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.14760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow diagram of study selection process
Summary of the comparison for the p values of the association between lncRNAs and clinicopathological features
| Author, year of publication | lncRNAs | Total number | age | FIGO stage | LM | Histological grade | Residual tumor diameter | CA125 | Ascites | Expression |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qiu [ | HOTAIR | 68 | 0.318 | 0.006 | - | 0.011 | 0.604 | 0.465 | 0.618 | Up-regulation |
| Qiu [ | HOTAIR | 64 | 0.442 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.157 | 0.209 | 0.784 | Up-regulation |
| Huang [ | CCAT2 | 109 | 0.702 | 0.002 | - | 0.006 | - | - | - | Up-regulation |
| Chen [ | NEAT1 | 149 | 0.464 | 0.004 | - | 0.009 | - | - | - | Up-regulation |
| Zhang [ | UCA1 | 117 | 0.702 | 0.025 | 0.016 | - | - | - | Up-regulation | |
| Yang [ | ANRIL | 68 | 0.318 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.042 | 0.12 | 0.808 | 0.134 | Up-regulation |
| Fu [ | ASAP1-IT1 | 165 | 0.19 | - | - | 0.55 | - | - | - | down-regulation |
| Fu [ | FAM215A | 165 | 0.028 | - | - | 0.004 | - | - | - | down-regulation |
| Fu [ | LINC00472 | 165 | 0.65 | - | - | 0.004 | - | - | - | down-regulation |
| Qiu [ | TC0101441 | 64 | 0.442 | <0.001 | - | <0.001 | - | - | 0.59 | Up-regulation |
| Teschendorf [ | HOTAIR | 134 | 0.166 | 0.733 | - | 0.182 | 0.308 | - | - | Up-regulation |
| Teschendorf [ | HOTAIR | 175 | 0.262 | 0.665 | - | 0.483 | 0.161 | - | - | Up-regulation |
Abbreviations: HOTAIR: HOX transcript antisense RNA; CCAT2: colon cancer associated transcript 2; NEAT1: nuclear paraspeckle assembly transcript 1; UCA1: urothelial carcinoma associated 1; ANRIL: antisense non-coding RNA in the INK4 locus
Figure 2Forest plots of studies evaluating odds ratios (ORs) of HOTAIR expression and the clinicopathology of OC patients
Comparison of the result between Fixed-effects model and Random-effects model
| Clinical features | Pooled OR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random | Fixed | |||
| Age | 0.86 (0.53,1.41) | 0.88 (0.60,1.29) | 34 | 0.21 |
| FIGO stage | 3.1 (0.98,10.37) | 2.35 (1.49,3.73) | 81 | 0.001 |
| Histological grade | 1.67 (0.59,4.74) | 1.22(0.83,1.79) | 84 | 0.0004 |
| Residual tumor diameter | 1.25 (0.84,1.88) | 1.26(0.84,1.88) | 0 | 0.74 |
Summary of lncRNAs used as prognostic biomarkers of ovarian cancer
| Author, year of publication | Country | lncRNAs | Total number | Cutoff | Method | Internal reference | Outcome | Follow-up | Quality score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qiu [ | China | HOTAIR | 34/34 | Median | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS | 100 | 8 |
| Qiu [ | China | HOTAIR | 32/32 | Median | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS | 80 | 8 |
| Huang [ | China | CCAT2 | 55/54 | Median | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS | 60 | 7 |
| Li [ | China | C17orf91 | −/− | - | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS/PFS | 80 | 7 |
| Chen [ | China | NEAT1 | 74/75 | Median | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS | 70 | 8 |
| Zhang [ | China | UCA1 | 59/58 | Median | qRT-PCR | RUN6 | OS | 80 | 8 |
| Yang [ | China | ANRIL | 34/34 | Median | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS | 100 | 8 |
| Qiu [ | China | AB073614 | 38/37 | - | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS | 60 | 7 |
| Fu [ | Italy | ASAP1-IT1 | 81/84 | Median | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS/PFS | 144 | 8 |
| Fu [ | Italy | FAM215A | 84/77 | Median | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS/PFS | 144 | 8 |
| Fu [ | Italy | LINC00472 | 82/84 | Median | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS/PFS | 144 | 8 |
| Qiu [ | China | TC0101441 | 32/32 | Median | qRT-PCR | GAPDH | OS | 80 | 8 |
| Teschendorf [ | Austria | HOTAIR | 72/62 | - | qRT-PCR | TBP | OS | 60 | 7 |
| Teschendorf [ | Holland | HOTAIR | 117/58 | - | qRT-PCR | TBP | OS | 60 | 7 |
| Guo [ | China | RP11-284N8.3.1 | 199/200 | - | DEGseq | - | OS/PFS | 160 | 7 |
| Guo [ | China | AC104699.1.1 | 199/200 | - | DEGseq | - | OS/PFS | 160 | 8 |
Abbreviations: OC: ovarian cancer; qRT-PCR: quantities reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; GAPDH: glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase; TBP: TATA-box bingding protein; OS: overall survival; PFS: prognostic free survival
Figure 3A display of Hazard ratios (HRs) of lncRNAs in OC patients
The point estimate is bounded by a 95% confidence interval, and the perpendicular line represents no increased risk for the outcome. OC: ovarian cancer.
Figure 4Forest plots for the association between HOTAIR expression and OS of OC patients
The point estimate is bounded by a 95% confidence interval, and the perpendicular line represents no increased risk for the outcome. OS: overall survival; OC: ovarian cancer.
Figure 5Sensitivity analysis of the influence of each individual study on the pooled HRs by omitting individual studies