| Literature DB >> 28301518 |
Gui Yang1, Qiaoling Deng2, Wei Fan2,3, Zheng Zhang2, Peipei Xu2, Shihui Tang2, Ping Wang2, Jun'e Wang2, Mingxia Yu1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence has demonstrated that cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is involved in head and neck cancers, especially in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, the association between COX-2 expression and lymph node metastasis in NPC remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis meta-analysis investigated the relationship between COX-2 expression and lymph node metastasis and other signs of disease progression in NPC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28301518 PMCID: PMC5354404 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173641
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow diagram of articles selection.
Main characteristics of included studies.
| First author-Year | Country | COX-2 assay | Classification | Patients | Control | Age | NLNM | LNM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | IHC-SP | China 1992 | 86(63) | 10(0) | Median 46 | 10(4) | 76(59) | |
| China | IHC-SABC | - | 62(48) | 10(0) | Mean 48.98 | 18(17) | 44(31) | |
| China | IHC-SP | China 1992 | 78(40) | - | Median 46 | 24(5) | 54(35) | |
| China | IHC | China 1992 | 43(34) | - | Mean 54.9 | 7(5) | 36(29) | |
| China | IHC-SABC | - | 39(35) | - | Mean 51.2 | 20(16) | 19(19) | |
| China | IHC-SP | - | 95(65) | 26(7) | - | 65(40) | 30(25) | |
| China | IHC | China 1992 | 53(46) | 23(10) | - | 21(17) | 32(29) | |
| China | IHC-SP | - | 45(32) | 20(2) | Mean 60.3 | 17(9) | 28(23) | |
| China | IHC-SP | AJCC | 56(43) | 20(3) | - | 12(6) | 44(37) | |
| China | IHC-SP | China 1992 | 60(54) | 30(2) | - | 22(17) | 38(37) | |
| China | IHC-SP | UICC | 97(83) | 20(4) | - | 28(18) | 69(65) | |
| China | IHC-SP | - | 86(65) | 30(1) | - | 25(10) | 61(55) | |
| China | IHC-SP | UICC | 45(31) | Median 44 | 17(7) | 28(24) | ||
| China | IHC-SP | China 1992 | 52(33) | 20(4) | Median 45.8 | 19(8) | 33(25) | |
| China | IHC-SABC | China 1992 | 20(14) | Mean 44.8 | 5(4) | 15(10) | ||
| China | IHC-SP | - | 86(69) | - | Mean 43.3 | 32(24) | 54(45) | |
| China | IHC-SP | AJCC | 50(32) | 15(0) | - | 15(4) | 35(28) | |
| China | IHC-SP | UICC | 33(27) | 12(3) | Mean 49.8 | 13(8) | 20(19) | |
| China | IHC | 45(35) | 20(2) | Mean 58.6 | 14(7) | 31(28) | ||
| China | IHC-SP | - | 66(52) | 20(2) | - | 26(14) | 40(38) | |
| China | IHC-SP | AJCC/UICC | 86(61) | - | Mean 45 | 7(5) | 79(56) | |
| China | RT-PCR | - | 32(22) | 11(3) | - | 17(9) | 15(13) | |
| China | IHC | UICC | 58(46) | 38(3) | Mean 47 | 18(8) | 40(38) | |
| China | IHC | - | 76(56) | 32(2) | Mean 57.9 | 21(10) | 55(46) | |
| China | IHC | - | 104(82) | - | Mean 48.7 | 20(11) | 84(71) | |
| China | IHC | - | 200(138) | - | - | 37(17) | 163(121) | |
| Tunisia | Real Time-PCR | - | 44(40) | 10(2) | Media 40 | 2(0) | 42(40) | |
| - | - | - | 1797(1346) | - | - | 532(300) | 1265(1046) |
Abbreviations: NLMN: non-lymph node metastasis; LMN: lymph node metastasis; IHC: immunohistochemistry; SP: streptavidin-peroxidase; SABC: streptavidin avidin-biotin-pcroxidase complex method; RT-PCR: real time polymerase chain reaction; AJCC: The American Joint Committee on Cancer; UICC: Union for International Cancer Control.
Other clinical characteristics of included studies.
| First author -Year | Gender | Tumor size stage | Distance metastasis | TNM stage | Differential | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male(+) | Female(+) | T1/T2(+) | T3/T4(+) | M0(+) | M1(+) | I/II(+) | III/IV(+) | High(+) | Low(+) | |
| Xu Xinhua-2006 | 65 | 21 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 11(5) | 75(58) |
| Jiang Daihua-2004 | 49(38) | 13(10) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Gu Shanzhi-2006 | 61 | 17 | 38(15) | 40(29) | 73(39) | 5(5) | - | - | - | - |
| Zhou Leyuan-2006 | 32(27) | 11(7) | - | - | - | - | 11(6) | 32(29) | - | - |
| Dou Yanling-2006 | 28 | 11 | - | - | 20 | 19 | 11(4) | 28(25) | - | - |
| Luo Weireng-2006 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Fu Yafeng-2007 | 36(33) | 17(13) | 52(45) | 1(1) | - | - | 39(32) | 14(14) | - | - |
| Zhou Fang-2007 | 31 | 14 | 29(19) | 16(13) | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Zhu Hongyuan-2008 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 15(8) | 41(35) | - | - |
| Miao Beiping-2007 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 25(20) | 35(34) | 29(24) | 31(30) |
| Gong Yongqian-2007 | 71(61) | 26(22) | - | - | - | - | 44(33) | 53(50) | - | - |
| Cui Dewei-2008 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Yuan Hong-2008 | 35(24) | 10(7) | - | - | - | - | 18(9) | 27(22) | - | - |
| Xie Zhenyu-2008 | 41(26) | 11(7) | - | - | - | - | 17(7) | 35(26) | - | - |
| Zhang Tingyou-2009 | 15 | 5 | 10(7) | 10(7) | 18(6) | 2(2) | 6(4) | 14(12) | - | - |
| Xiong Danning—2009 | 64(53) | 22(16) | - | - | - | - | 38(33) | 48(46) | - | - |
| Liu Yangyun-2010 | 25(18) | 25(15) | 14(3) | 36(30) | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Jing Qiancheng-2010 | 25(20) | 8(7) | 15(10) | 18(17) | - | - | - | - | 2(1) | 31(26) |
| Wu Jingbo-2011 | 32(25) | 13(10) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wang Zhiyong-2011 | 51(40) | 15(12) | - | - | - | - | - | 19(12) | 47(40) | |
| Xi Shaoyan-2012 | 61(40) | 21(21) | 45(30) | 41(31) | - | - | 40(25) | 46(36) | - | - |
| Li Jianping-2012 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Bai Weiqi-2012 | 40(31) | 18(15) | - | - | - | - | 19(10) | 39(36) | - | - |
| Zhang Daqun-2013 | 53 | 23 | 31(24) | 45(32) | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Zhu Honghai-2014 | 85(67) | 19(15) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Dingbo Shi-2014 | 145(101) | 55(37) | 76(41) | 124(97) | 153(57) | 47(42) | 78(36) | 122(102) | - | - |
| Ali Fendri-2008 | 30 | 15 | - | - | - | 11 | - | - | - | - |
Assessment of study quality according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
| Studies | Items | NOS score | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5a | 5b | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
| Xu Xinhua-2006 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Jiang Daihua-2004 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Gu Shanzhi-2006 | * | * | * | * | - | - | * | * | - | 6 |
| Zhou Leyuan-2006 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Dou Yanling-2006 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Luo Weireng-2006 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Fu Yafeng-2007 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Zhou Fang-2007 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Zhu Hongyuan-2008 | * | * | * | * | - | - | * | * | - | 6 |
| Miao Beiping-2007 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Gong Yongqian-2007 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Cui Dewei-2008 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Yuan Hong-2008 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Xie Zhenyu-2008 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Zhang Tingyou-2009 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Xiong Danning—2009 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Liu Yangyun-2010 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Jing Qiancheng-2010 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Wu Jingbo-2011 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Wang Zhiyong-2011 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Xi Shaoyan-2012 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Li Jianping-2012 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Bai Weiqi-2012 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Zhang Daqun-2013 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Zhu Honghai-2014 | * | * | * | * | - | - | * | * | - | 6 |
| Dingbo Shi-2014 | * | * | * | - | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
| Ali Fendri-2008 | * | - | * | * | - | - | * | * | - | 5 |
Annotations: 1 adequacy of the case definition; 2 representativeness of the cases; 3 selection of controls; 4 definition of controls. 5a multiple ratings for this item for different categories of exposure; 5b other controlled factors; 6 ascertainment of exposure; 7 same method of ascertainment for cases and controls; 8 non-response rate.
Fig 2Forest plot: odds ratio (OR) for COX-2 expression in NPC and normal tissue.
Fig 3Forest plot:odds ratio (OR) for COX-2 expression and lymph node metastasis in NPC.
Main results from subgroup analyses.
| Subtypes | No. | OR | 95% CI | Z (p) | Pheterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | 6.29 | 4.55,8.67 | 11.19(0.000) | 0.561 | |
| 5 | 2.42 | 1.45,4.02 | 3.40(0.001) | 0.006 | |
| 3 | 1.80 | 0.81,4.01 | 1.44(0.150) | 0.947 | |
| 1 | 5.78 | 0.99,33.83 | 1.95(0.052) | - | |
| 1 | 81.00 | 3.01,2183.15 | 2.61(0.009) | - | |
| 7 | 3.98 | 2.30,6.86 | 4.96(0.000) | 0.421 | |
| 7 | 7.26 | 4.22,12.48 | 7.17(0.000) | 0.24 | |
| 13 | 3.88 | 2.80,5,39 | 8.12(0.000) | 0.014 | |
| 26 | 4.37 | 3.40,5.61 | 11.55(0.000) | 0.035 | |
| 1 | 81.00 | 3.01,2183.15 | 2.61(0.000) | - | |
| 27 | 4.44 | 3.46,5.70 | 11.74(0.000) | 0.024 |
Abbreviations: IHC: immunohistochemistry; SP: streptavidin-peroxidase; SABC: streptavidin avidin-biotin-pcroxidase complex method; RT-PCR: real time polymerase chain reaction; AJCC: The American Joint Committee on Cancer; UICC: Union for International Cancer Control.
Fig 4Forest plots: odds ratio (OR) for other clinicopathological parameters.
(a) sex (male vs female); (b) metastasis (M1 vs M0); (c) tumor size (T1/T2 vs T3/T4); (d) TNM stage (I/II vs III/IV); (e) differentiation (low vs high)
Fig 5Sensitivity analysis to test the influences of individual studies on overall effects.
Fig 6Funnel Plots of publication bias summary for corresponding Meta-analysis (left) and Egger's publication bias plot with pseudo 95%CI (right)