| Literature DB >> 28327158 |
Yu-Ying Lei1, Jin-Yu Huang1, Qiong-Rui Zhao2, Nan Jiang3, Hui-Mian Xu1, Zhen-Ning Wang1, Hai-Qing Li1, Shi-Bo Zhang1, Zhe Sun4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) is regarded as an important and promising target in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancers. However, the correlation of clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic significance of HER2 overexpression in gastric cancer patients remains unclear. Our aim was to clarify this issue.Entities:
Keywords: Gastric cancer; HER2/neu; Meta; Prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28327158 PMCID: PMC5359900 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-017-1132-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1Procedure of study selection
Association of HER2 expression and clinicopathological parameters
| Clinicopathological parameters | Number of studies | Number of patients | OR (95% CI) |
| Heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Age (old vs young) | 27 | 12,800 | 0.90(0.74,1.10) | 0.31 | 62.9 | 0.00 |
| Sex (male vs female) | 33 | 15,304 | 1.48(1.34,1.65) | 0.00 | 21.1 | 0.14 |
| Tumor size (large vs small) | 11 | 1614 | 0.83(0.64,1.07) | 0.21 | 13.4 | 0.32 |
| Tumor site (proximal vs distal) | 24 | 12,853 | 1.25(1.07,1.47) | 0.01 | 27.4 | 0.11 |
| Lauren’s classification (intestinal vs diffuse) | 30 | 13,972 | 3.37(2.54,4.47) | 0.00 | 74.2 | 0.00 |
| TNM stage (III+IV vs I+II) | 24 | 12,542 | 1.35(1.10,1.66) | 0.01 | 62.4 | 0.00 |
| Lymph node metastasis(N+ vs N−) | 27 | 14,075 | 1.26(1.14,1.41) | 0.03 | 0.0 | 0.66 |
| Differentiation grade (well vs poor) | 28 | 9086 | 1.79(1.15,2.76) | 0.01 | 86.6 | 0.00 |
| Distant metastasis (M+ vs M−) | 9 | 4427 | 1.91(1.08,3.38) | 0.00 | 54.4 | 0.03 |
| Lymphovascular invasion (yes vs no) | 10 | 3957 | 1.30(0.86,1.95) | 0.22 | 62.5 | 0.00 |
| Neural invasion (yes vs no) | 4 | 1361 | 0.58(0.24,1.37) | 0.21 | 80.1 | 0.00 |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, N node, M metastasis
Fig. 2Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in studies assessing the relationship between HER2 expression and overall survival (OS)
Fig. 3Funnel plot for ten studies included in multivariate analysis of overall survival
Subgroup analysis by defining HER2 status by Hoffman validation criteria
| Not fit Hoffman criteria | Fit Hoffman criteria | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinicopathological parameters | Number of studies | OR/RR(95% CI) |
| Heterogeneity | Number of studies | OR/RR(95%CI) |
| Heterogeneity | ||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| Sex | 18 | 1.34(1.15, 1.56) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.716 | 15 | 1.63(1.41, 1.89) | <0.001 | 42.4 | 0.042 |
| Age | 13 | 1.01(0.72, 1.41) | 0.976 | 72.0 | 0.000 | 14 | 0.78(0.62, 0.99) | 0.038 | 45.6 | 0.032 |
| Tumor size | 7 | 0.94(0.70, 1.26) | 0.692 | 0.0 | 0.486 | 4 | 0.55(0.32, 0.96) | 0.070 | 12.6 | 0.330 |
| Tumor site | 10 | 1.06(0.83, 1.37) | 0.632 | 25.3 | 0.211 | 14 | 1.40(1.14, 1.71) | 0.001 | 25.2 | 0.182 |
| Lauren’s classification | 17 | 3.67(2.47, 5.47) | <0.001 | 76.2 | <0.001 | 13 | 3.03(1.95,4.70) | <0.001 | 73.4 | <0.001 |
| Differentiation grade | 16 | 1.24(0.76, 2.05) | 0.390 | 74.8 | <0.001 | 12 | 2.71(1.66, 4.44) | <0.001 | 76.8 | <0.001 |
| TNM stage (III+IV vs I+II) | 14 | 1.53(1.05,2.23) | 0.026 | 77.4 | <0.001 | 10 | 1.23(1.04,1.46) | 0.014 | 0.0 | 0.939 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 13 | 1.15(1.00, 1.33) | 0.057 | 0.0 | 0.500 | 14 | 1.40(1.19, 1.64) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.847 |
| Distant metastasis | 5 | 2.58(1.00, 6.67) | 0.050 | 64.8 | 0.023 | 4 | 1.52(1.18, 1.95) | 0.001 | 0.0 | 0.617 |
| Lymphovascular invasion | 6 | 1.18(0.75, 1.85) | 0.468 | 74.1 | 0.002 | 4 | 2.16(0.87, 5.35) | 0.096 | 0.0 | 0.421 |
| Overall survival | 4 | 1.95(1.38, 2.51) | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.583 | 6 | 1.11(0.68, 1.53) | <0.001 | 70.8 | 0.004 |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, TNM tumor, node, metastasis