| Literature DB >> 28211499 |
Pingping Hu1, Qiqi Liu1, Guodong Deng1, Jingxin Zhang2, Ning Liang1, Jian Xie1, Jiandong Zhang1.
Abstract
The outcomes of studies analyzing the prognostic role of CTLA-4 in cancers are controversial. Therefore, the aim of our meta-analysis was to clarify the correlation between CTLA-4 expression and OS in different cancer cases. Relevant literature was searched using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The clinicopathological features, hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were collected from these studies and were analyzed using Stata version 12.0 software. The pooled HR values showed no significant correlation between CTLA-4 expression levels and OS in relation to tumors (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.98-1.56, I2 = 71.7%, P = 0.000). Further subgroup analyses were conducted and categorized by experimental methods, CTLA-4 sources and cancer types. The survey showed a significant correlation (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.14-1.89) between high expression of CTLA-4 and OS in the SNP subgroup, and subgroups analyzing by PCR (HR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.20-1.86) and flow cytometry (HR: 2.76, 95% CI: 1.49-5.14). In addition, our analysis observed significant differences between patients and controls in inCTLA-4+CD4+ lymphocytes, surCTLA-4+CD4+ lymphocytes, inCTLA-4+CD8+ lymphocytes, and surCTLA-4+CD8+ lymphocytes. Knowledge of the effects of CTLA-4 could potentially be used to effectively guide appropriate prognosis and therapeutic strategies in cancer patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28211499 PMCID: PMC5314410 DOI: 10.1038/srep42913
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Main characteristics of eligible studies.
| Author | Year | Country | N | Cancer | Stage | Adjuvant therapy | Source | Method | Cut-off criteria | Cut-off value | Analyze method | HR | Survival analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huang | 2016 | China | 191 | NPC | I–IV | RT, CCRT | tumor, LYM | IHC | median | H-score of 0.7 | MVA | report | OS |
| Roncella | 2016 | Italy | 45 | MPM | I–IV | NM | blood, tumor | IHC, ELISA | median | S->66 PE->67 | MVA | report | OS |
| Fukuda | 2016 | Japan | 181 | renal cancer | I–IV | targeted therapy | blood | ELISA | NM | NM | UA | DE | OS |
| Zhang | 2015 | China | 158 | esophageal cancer | I–IV | NM | tumor | IHC | mean | H-score of 2–4 | MVA | report | OS |
| Yu | 2015 | China | 130 | breast cancer | I–IIIC | RT, CT, ET | tumor; LYM | IHC | ROC curve | H-score of 1.525 | MVA | report | OS |
| Teng | 2015 | China | 62 | rectal cancer | III–IV | CCRT | Tumor | IHC | NM | H score of 20 | UA | Report | OS |
| Sengsayadeth | 2014 | America | 780 | hematological cancer | NM | HSCT | SNP | PCR | NM | NM | MVA | K-M | OS |
| Fong | 2013 | America | 24 | glioblastoma | NM | immunotherapy | LYM | FC | RPA | 1.047:0.8065 | UA | report | OS |
| Salvi | 2012 | Italy | 81 | LC | I–IIIB | None | tumor | IHC | median | H-score of 20 | MVA | report | OS |
| Jagasia | 2012 | America | 164 | hematological cancer | NM | HSCT | SNP | PCR | NM | NM | MVA | report | OS |
| Wang | 2012 | UK | 284 | melanoma | II–III | IFN-a Therapy | tumor | PCR | median | NM | MVA | report | OS |
| Xiao | 2012 | China | 240 | hematological cancer | NM | immunotherapy | SNP | PCR | NM | NM | MVA | K-M | OS |
| Song | 2011 | China | 338 | LC | IIIB–IV | RT, CT, CRT | SNP | PCR | N/A | N/A | MVA | report | OS |
| Pe´rez-Garcı´a | 2009 | Spain | 143 | AML | NM | CT | SNP | PCR | NM | NM | MVA | Report | OS |
| Erfani | 2013 | Iran | 72 | laryngeal cancer | I–IV | None | LYM | FCM | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Erfani | 2012 | Iran | 39 | LC | II–IV | None | LYM | FCM | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
N, number; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; MVA, multivariate analysis; UA, univariate analysis; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; IHC, immunohistochemistry; N/A, not applicable; H score, histochemical score; RPA, recursive partitioning analysis; NPC, nasopharyngeal cancer; MPM, malignant pleural mesothelioma; LC, lung cancer; AML, acute myelocytic leukemia; RT, radiotherapy; CT, chemotherapy; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; ET, endocrine therapy; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphisms; LYM, lymphocyte; FCM, flow cytometry; DE, data extrapolated.
Figure 1Meta-analysis flow chart.
Figure 2Funnel plots and Egger’s test in the context of OS without and with trim and fill.
The pseudo 95% CI is computed as part of the analysis that produces the funnel plot and Egger’s test, and corresponds to the expected 95% CI for a given standard error (SE).
Figure 3Sensitivity analysis of OS in the meta-analysis.
Figure 4Forrest plots evaluating maximally adjusted association between CTLA-4 expression and OS.
(A) Forrest plot to assess the overall effect of CTLA-4 on OS in all cancer patients. (B) Forrest plot to assess the effect of CTLA-4 on OS in subgroups divided by cancer types. (C) Forrest plot to assess the effect of CTLA-4 on OS in subgroups divided by experimental methods. (D) Forrest plot to assess the effect of CTLA-4 on OS in subgroups divided by CTLA-4 sources.
Mean percentage of CTLA4+ lymphocyte subsets in cancer patients and healthy donors.
| Patients | Groups | P-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | mean | SD | N | mean | SD | ||
| Surface CTLA4 lymphocytes | |||||||
| Sur-CD4+ | 58 | 0.78 | 0.65 | 39 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.000 |
| Sur-CD8+ | 58 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 39 | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.002 |
| Sur-CD19+ | 56 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 32 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.109 |
| Intra cellular CTLA4 lymphocytes | |||||||
| In-CD4+ | 58 | 8.66 | 7.49 | 39 | 4.17 | 6.11 | 0.002 |
| In-CD8+ | 57 | 9.12 | 9.72 | 36 | 3.5 | 7.65 | 0.004 |
| In-CD19+ | 58 | 0.89 | 1.98 | 33 | 0.3 | 0.35 | 0.095 |
Sur-, surface CTLA-4; In-, intra CTLA-4; N, number; SD, standard deviation.