| Literature DB >> 28182725 |
Fei Luo1, Ya-Shen Wang1, Yan-Hui Su1, Zhi-Hua Zhang1, Hong-Hong Sun1, Jian Li1.
Abstract
The prognostic significance of preoperative anemia (PA) has been identified in various malignancies. However, its predictive role in urothelial carcinoma (UC) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of PA in UC patients. We performed a meta-analysis of the association between PA and survival outcome in UC patients. Electronic databases were searched up to June 30, 2016. Study characteristics and prognostic data were extracted from each included study. Cancer-specific survival (CSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were pooled using hazard ratio (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Herein, 12 studies comprising 3815 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were 1593 (41.76%) patients in the PA group and 2222 (58.24%) in the control group. The overall pooled HRs of PA for CSS, RFS, and OS were significant at 2.21, (95% CI: 1.83-2.65, Pheterogeneity = 0.49, I2 = 0%), 1.87 (95% CI: 1.59-2.20, Pheterogeneity = 0.22, I2 = 28%), and 2.04(95% CI: 1.76-2.37, Pheterogeneity = 0.36, I2 = 9%) respectively. Stratified analyses indicated that PA was a predictor of poor prognosis based on ethnicity, sample size, tumor T stage, G grade, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), concomitant carcinoma in situ (CIS), and follow-up values. Our findings show that PA has negative prognostic effects on the survival outcome (CSS, RFS, and OS) in UC patients and can serve as a useful and cost-effective marker to aid prognosis prediction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28182725 PMCID: PMC5300162 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171701
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow Diagram of the Assessment of Studies Identified for the Meta-analysis.
The flow diagram shows eligible publications at each stage of the analysis process. The database search was conducted in July 2016.
Main Characteristics of all Studies Included in the Meta-analysis.
| First author | Year | No. of patients (all/anemia) | Gender (Male/Female) | Country | Time | location | Treatment | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HC. Yeh | 2016 | 370(242) | 148/222 | Taiwan | 2000–2013 | Upper Tract | Radical | 7 |
| JK. Jo | 2016 | 200(119) | 176/24 | Korea | 2003–2014 | Bladder | Radical Cystectomy | 7 |
| O. Celik | 2016 | 320(118) | 268/52 | Turkey | 2006–2014 | Bladder | TURBT | 8 |
| T. Schubert | 2016 | 246(64) | 182/64 | Germany | 1999–2009 | Bladder | Radical Cystectomy | 8 |
| T. Hara | 2016 | 254(109) | 207/47 | Japan | 2001–2010 | Bladder | Radical Cystectomy | 8 |
| B. Milojevic | 2015 | 238(97) | 132/106 | Serbia | 1999–2013 | Upper Tract | Radical | 7 |
| M. Gierth | 2015 | 684(269) | 551/133 | Germany | 2001–2011 | Bladder | Radical Cystectomy | 8 |
| N. Hinata | 2015 | 730(276) | 561/169 | Japan | 2001–2010 | Bladder | Radical Cystectomy | 8 |
| M. Rink | 2014 | 282(112) | 179/103 | Germany | 1992–2012 | Upper Tract | Radical | 7 |
| S. Morizane | 2013 | 99(68) | 71/28 | Japan | 1995–2011 | Upper Tract | Radical | 6 |
| HM. Bruins | 2013 | 320(97) | 235/85 | Netherlands | 1998–2011 | Bladder | Radical Cystectomy | 7 |
| B. Akdogan | 2005 | 72(22) | 59/13 | Turkey | 1987–2003 | Upper Tract | Radical | 6 |
Fig 2Forest Plot Illustrating the Meta-analysis of the Prognostic Value of PA for CSS.
Fig 3Forest Plot Illustrating the Meta-analysis of the Prognostic Value of PA for RFS in UC Patients.
Fig 4Forest Plot Illustrating the Meta-analysis of the Prognostic Value of PA for Overall Survival (OS) in UC Patients.
Fig 5Forest Plot Illustrating the Subgroup Analysis of the Prognostic Value of PA for CSS in BC and UTUC.
Results of the subgroup analysis of the prognostic significance of PA.
| CSS | RFS | OS | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | No. Study | HR | 95%CI | PZ | I2,% | Pheterogeneity | Model | No. Study | HR | 95%CI | PZ | I2,% | Pheterogeneity | Model | No. Study | HR | 95%CI | PZ | I2,% | Pheterogeneity | Model |
| Location | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Upper Tract | 5 | 2.1 | 1.57–2.81 | <0.00001 | 38 | 0.17 | Fixed | 2 | 1.4 | 0.54–3.62 | 0.49 | 71 | 0.06 | Random | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Bladder | 4 | 2.28 | 1.80–2.90 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.86 | Fixed | 5 | 1.9 | 1.56–2.31 | <0.00001 | 16 | 0.32 | Random | 7 | 2.04 | 1.76–2.37 | <0.00001 | 9 | 0.36 | Fixed |
| Ethnic | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Asian | 3 | 2.41 | 1.62–3.57 | <0.0001 | 0 | 0.44 | Fixed | 2 | 1.52 | 1.12–2.07 | 0.008 | 31 | 0.23 | Fixed | 3 | 1.76 | 1.35–2.30 | <0.0001 | 6 | 0.34 | Fixed |
| Caucasian | 6 | 2.15 | 1.75–2.65 | <0.00001 | 10 | 0.35 | Fixed | 5 | 2.02 | 1.68–2.45 | <0.00001 | 11 | 0.35 | Fixed | 4 | 2.19 | 1.83–2.61 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.43 | Fixed |
| No. of patients | |||||||||||||||||||||
| >300 | 3 | 2.16 | 1.65–2.83 | <0.00001 | 0 | 1 | Fixed | 2 | 1.69 | 1.13–2.51 | 0.01 | 67 | 0.08 | Random | 3 | 2.02 | 1.31–3.12 | 0.002 | 65 | 0.06 | Random |
| ≤300 | 6 | 2.25 | 1.74–2.89 | <0.00001 | 32 | 0.19 | Fixed | 5 | 2.01 | 1.57–2.58 | <0.00001 | 11 | 0.34 | Random | 4 | 1.98 | 1.55–2.52 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.83 | Random |
| Stage | |||||||||||||||||||||
| T3-4≤40% | 4 | 1.94 | 1.36–2.79 | 0.0003 | 12 | 0.33 | Fixed | 3 | 1.79 | 1.04–3.06 | 0.03 | 55 | 0.11 | Random | 3 | 1.99 | 1.44–2.74 | <0.0001 | 6 | 0.34 | Fixed |
| T3-4>40% | 5 | 2.31 | 1.86–2.87 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.5 | Fixed | 4 | 1.83 | 1.49–2.26 | <0.00001 | 19 | 0.29 | Random | 4 | 2.06 | 1.74–2.43 | <0.00001 | 33 | 0.22 | Fixed |
| Grade | |||||||||||||||||||||
| G3>50% | 3 | 2.22 | 1.60–3.10 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.55 | Random | 3 | 1.71 | 1.34–2.18 | <0.0001 | 30 | 0.24 | Fixed | 3 | 1.74 | 1.35–2.26 | <0.0001 | 0 | 0.41 | Fixed |
| G3≤50% | 4 | 2.15 | 1.05–4.38 | 0.04 | 52 | 0.1 | Random | 1 | 0.77 | 0.30–2.00 | 0.6 | - | - | Fixed | 1 | 4.48 | 1.07–21.92 | 0.04 | - | - | Fixed |
| LVI | |||||||||||||||||||||
| LVI≤20% | 4 | 2.5 | 1.82–3.43 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.63 | Fixed | 2 | 2.26 | 1.59–3.22 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.71 | Fixed | 2 | 1.91 | 1.37–2.64 | 0.0001 | 0 | 0.39 | Fixed |
| LVI>20% | 3 | 2.19 | 1.72–2.78 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.55 | Fixed | 4 | 1.84 | 1.53–2.21 | <0.00001 | 19 | 0.29 | Fixed | 4 | 2.06 | 1.74–2.43 | <0.00001 | 33 | 0.22 | Fixed |
| CIS(+) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ≤20% | 4 | 2.18 | 1.55–3.05 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.52 | Fixed | 2 | 2.08 | 1.47–2.93 | <0.0001 | 0 | 0.98 | Fixed | 2 | 2.47 | 1.51–4.06 | 0.0003 | 0 | 0.36 | Random |
| >20% | 2 | 2.29 | 1.74–3.01 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.39 | Fixed | 2 | 2.04 | 1.59–2.61 | <0.00001 | 0 | 1 | Fixed | 3 | 1.96 | 1.46–2.64 | <0.00001 | 55 | 0.11 | Random |
| Follow-up Time | |||||||||||||||||||||
| <50months | 5 | 2.42 | 1.86–3.15 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.55 | Fixed | 3 | 2.06 | 1.55–2.75 | <0.00001 | 0 | 1 | Random | 3 | 2.13 | 1.58–2.87 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.94 | Random |
| ≥50months | 3 | 1.98 | 1.49–2.63 | <0.00001 | 40 | 0.19 | Fixed | 4 | 1.7 | 1.20–2.41 | 0.003 | 61 | 0.05 | Random | 4 | 1.92 | 1.42–2.60 | <0.0001 | 53 | 0.09 | Random |
| End of Follow-up | |||||||||||||||||||||
| after 2011 | 6 | 2.15 | 1.74–2.67 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.5 | Fixed | 3 | 1.91 | 1.49–2.45 | <0.00001 | 47 | 0.15 | Fixed | 3 | 2.34 | 1.92–2.87 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.64 | Fixed |
| before 2011 | 3 | 2.37 | 1.63–3.45 | <0.00001 | 30 | 0.24 | Fixed | 4 | 1.84 | 1.49–2.28 | <0.00001 | 34 | 0.21 | Fixed | 4 | 1.73 | 1.39–2.16 | <0.00001 | 0 | 0.62 | Fixed |
Fig 6Funnel Plot Illustrating the Lack of Publication Bias in the Meta-analysis for CSS (A), RFS (B), OS (C), and the CSS Subgroup Analysis Comparing BC and UTUC (D).