| Literature DB >> 28287186 |
Yongpeng Xie1,2, Luyao Chen1, Xin Ma1, Hongzhao Li1, Liangyou Gu1, Yu Gao1, Yang Fan1, Yu Zhang1, Xu Zhang1.
Abstract
Previous studies have elevated the prognostic value of Ki-67 in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but the reports are controversial and inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the significance of Ki-67 in RCC prognosis. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to identify relevant studies until April 2016. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 20 studies, including 5,398 patients, were eligible for further analysis. Results showed that high Ki-67 expression in RCC was associated with poor OS (HR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.44-2.64), CSS (HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.47-1.89), and DFS (HR = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.79-3.67). In addition, high Ki-67 expression was significantly associated with TNM stage (III/IV vs. I/II: RR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.68-2.44), pathological T stage (T3/T4 vs. T1/T2: RR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.35-2.06), metastasis (yes vs. no: RR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.77-2.62), and Fuhrman grade (III/IV vs. I/II: RR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.20-2.60). Our study suggested that Ki-67 was a prognostic marker in RCC. High Ki-67 expression was correlated with poor prognosis and advanced clinicopathological features, and it could serve as a biomarker for disease management.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28287186 PMCID: PMC5347162 DOI: 10.1038/srep44281
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flow chart of study selection.
Characteristics of eligible studies in the meta-analysis.
| Study | Year | Country | Study design | Tumor extenta | Histopathological subtype | Case number | Gender (M/F) | Age (years) | Counting method | Cut-off staining | follow-up (months) | Survival analysis | Quality score* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rioux-Leclercq | 2000 | France | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC | 73 | 47/26 | Mean 64 | eyeball | 20% | 52 | CSS | 8 |
| Yuba | 2001 | Japan | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC | 52 | 43/9 | Mean 58.4 | eyeball | 5.6% | 39 | CSS | 7 |
| Cheville | 2002 | USA | Cohort study | localized | ccRCC | 232 | NA | NA | formal counting | 5% | 126 | CSS | 8 |
| Bui | 2004 | USA | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC | 224 | 149/75 | Mean 61.5 | formal counting | 10% | 34 | CSS | 8 |
| Kim | 2004 | USA | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC | 318 | 215/103 | Mean 61 | eyeball | 15% | 28 | CSS | 8 |
| Lehmann | 2004 | Germany | Cohort study | localized | ccRCC | 48 | 27/21 | Median 63 | eyeball | 6% | 91 | DFS | 6 |
| Dudderidge | 2005 | UK | Cohort study | localized | ccRCC + non-ccRCC | 176 | 120/56 | Mean 63.7 | eyeball | 12% | 44 | DFS | 8 |
| Kim | 2005 | USA | Cohort study | metastatic | ccRCC | 150 | 107/43 | Mean 59 | eyeball | NA | 14.8 | CSS | 6 |
| Pinto | 2005 | Portugal | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC + non-ccRCC | 64 | 34/30 | Mean 61.6 | eyeball | 10% | 86 | OS | 6 |
| Kankuri | 2006 | Finland | Cohort study | localized | ccRCC + non-ccRCC | 37 | 18/19 | Mean 62.2 | eyeball | 10% | 76 | OS,DFS | 6 |
| Tollefson | 2007 | USA | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC | 741 | 475/266 | 358/383b (≥65 y/<65 y) | eyeball | ≥50 positive cells/mm2 | >39.6 | CSS | 9 |
| Gontero | 2008 | Italy | Cohort study | all-stage | non-ccRCC | 46 | 37/9 | 28/18 (≥60 y/<60 y) | eyeball | 14% | 84.5 | OS | 8 |
| Parker | 2009 | USA | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC | 634 | 413/221 | 312/322 (≥65 y/<65 y) | eyeball | ≥50 positive cells/mm2 | NA | CSS | 8 |
| Zubac | 2009 | Norway | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC | 172 | 95/77 | Mean 66.6 | formal counting | 10% | 68.4 | CSS | 8 |
| Kankuri-Tammilehto | 2010 | Finland | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC + non-ccRCC | 57 | NA | Mean 61 | eyeball | 10% | >100 | OS | 6 |
| Weber | 2013 | Germany | Cohort study | localized | ccRCC | 132 | 80/52 | Median 63.5 | eyeball | 15% | 122.4 | CSS | 8 |
| Gayed | 2014 | USA | Cohort study | localized | ccRCC | 401 | 239/162 | Median 58 | eyeball | 10% | 22 | DFS,CSS | 8 |
| Teng | 2014 | China | Cohort study | localized | ccRCC | 378 | 272/106 | Mean 53.4 | NA | 50% | 60 | DFS | 8 |
| Zheng | 2014 | China | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC + non-ccRCC | 1239 | 858/381 | 53.9 | eyeball | 15% | 56.8 | DFS | 8 |
| Virman | 2016 | Findland | Cohort study | all-stage | ccRCC + non-ccRCC | 224 | 132/92 | Median 65 | formal counting | Median staining | 64.8 | OS | 9 |
ccRCC: clear cell renal cell carcinoma; OS: overall survival; CSS: cancer-specific survival; DFS: disease-free survival; NA: not available.
aReported at time of diagnosis.
b358 patients ≥ 65 years, and other 383 patients < 65 years.
*The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale.
Figure 2Forest plots of studies evaluating the association between Ki-67 expression and prognostic outcomes of RCC patients: (A) effect of Ki-67 overexpression on OS, (B) CSS, and (C) DFS. HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; OS: overall survival; CSS: cancer-specific survival; DFS: disease-free survival; RCC: renal cell carcinoma. HR > 1 implies unfavorable prognosis for patients with high Ki-67 expression.
Subgroup analysis of pooled HR for RCC patients with Ki-67 overexpression.
| Outcome | Subgroup | Studies | Pooled HR | 95% CI | P Value | Model | Heterogeneity | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS | Ethnicity | |||||||
| Caucasian | 5 | 1.95 | 1.44–2.64 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.594 | |
| Asian | 0 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| Tumor extent | ||||||||
| all-stage | 4 | 2.01 | 1.46–2.77 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.510 | |
| localized | 1 | 1.40 | 0.52–3.76 | 0.504 | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| metastatic | 0 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| Histopathological subtype | ||||||||
| ccRCC | 0 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| Counting method | ||||||||
| eyeball counting | 4 | 1.86 | 1.22–2.82 | 0.004 | fixed | 0 | 0.443 | |
| formal counting | 1 | 2.05 | 1.32–3.19 | 0.001 | fixed | ─ | ─ | |
| Cutoff of staining | ||||||||
| <10% | 0 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| ≥10% | 4 | 1.86 | 1.22–2.82 | 0.004 | fixed | 0 | 0.443 | |
| Follow up (month) | ||||||||
| <60 | 0 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| ≥60 | 5 | 1.95 | 1.44–2.64 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.594 | |
| CSS | Ethnicity | |||||||
| Caucasian | 10 | 1.67 | 1.47–1.89 | <0.001 | fixed | 12.2 | 0.331 | |
| Asian | 1 | 1.88 | 0.41–8.67 | 0.417 | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| Tumor extent | ||||||||
| all-stage | 7 | 1.80 | 1.52–2.13 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.676 | |
| localized | 3 | 2.29 | 0.85–6.19 | 0.104 | random | 52.8 | 0.120 | |
| metastatic | 1 | 1.49 | 1.22–1.82 | <0.001 | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| Histopathological subtype | ||||||||
| ccRCC | 11 | 1.67 | 1.47–1.89 | <0.001 | fixed | 2.7 | 0.417 | |
| Counting method | ||||||||
| eyeball counting | 8 | 1.66 | 1.44–1.90 | <0.001 | fixed | 13.7 | 0.323 | |
| formal counting | 3 | 1.73 | 1.26–2.38 | 0.001 | fixed | 4.8 | 0.350 | |
| Cutoff of staining | ||||||||
| <10% | 2 | 1.26 | 0.66–2.41 | 0.476 | fixed | 0 | 0.573 | |
| ≥10% | 6 | 1.90 | 1.45–2.49 | <0.001 | fixed | 19.4 | 0.287 | |
| Follow up (month) | ||||||||
| <60 | 7 | 1.59 | 1.38–1.84 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.633 | |
| ≥60 | 3 | 1.93 | 1.22–3.03 | 0.005 | fixed | 52.5 | 0.122 | |
| DFS | Ethnicity | |||||||
| Caucasian | 4 | 2.63 | 1.73–4.01 | <0.001 | fixed | 15.1 | 0.316 | |
| Asian | 2 | 2.38 | 1.18–4.80 | 0.015 | fixed | 0 | 0.778 | |
| Tumor extent | ||||||||
| all-stage | 1 | 2.11 | 0.74–6.50 | 0.178 | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| localized | 5 | 2.63 | 1.79–3.85 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.473 | |
| metastatic | 0 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| Histopathological subtype | ||||||||
| ccRCC | 3 | 3.66 | 2.00–6.72 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.463 | |
| Counting method | ||||||||
| eyeball counting | 5 | 2.57 | 1.73–3.79 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.452 | |
| formal counting | 0 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| Cutoff of staining | ||||||||
| <10% | 1 | 7.18 | 1.91–26.99 | 0.004 | ─ | ─ | ─ | |
| ≥10% | 5 | 2.36 | 1.62–3.43 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.884 | |
| Follow up (month) | ||||||||
| <60 | 3 | 2.45 | 1.54–3.91 | <0.001 | fixed | 0 | 0.653 | |
| ≥60 | 3 | 2.73 | 1.55–4.82 | 0.001 | fixed | 26.9 | 0.255 | |
OS: overall survival; CSS: cancer-specific survival; DFS: disease-free survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; RCC: renal cell carcinoma; ccRCC: clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Meta-analysis of the association between high Ki-67 expression and clinicopathological features of RCC.
| Variables | Studies | Pooled RR | 95% CI | P Value | Model | Heterogeneity | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TNM stage (III/IV vs. I/II) | 4 | 2.03 | 1.68–2.44 | <0.001 | fixed | 18.2 | 0.300 |
| pT stage (T3/T4 vs. T1/T2) | 8 | 1.67 | 1.35–2.06 | <0.001 | random | 58.5 | 0.018 |
| Metastasisa (yes vs. no) | 5 | 2.15 | 1.77–2.62 | <0.001 | fixed | 15.9 | 0.313 |
| Fuhrman grade (III/IV vs. I/II) | 8 | 1.77 | 1.20–2.60 | 0.004 | random | 95.2 | <0.001 |
aBoth lymph node and distant metastases; RR: relative ratio; CI: confidence interval; RCC: renal cell carcinoma.
Figure 3Funnel plots and Begg’s and Egger’s tests for the evaluation of potential publication bias.
(A) Overall survival, (B) cancer-specific survival, and (C) disease-free survival.