| Literature DB >> 28638466 |
Juan Tan1, Yi-Chao Hou1, Lin-Na Fu1, Yun-Qian Wang1, Qian-Qian Liu1, Hua Xiong1, Ying-Xuan Chen1, Jing-Yuan Fang1.
Abstract
Background: Colon Cancer-Associated Transcript 2 (CCAT2) has been demonstrated associated with clinical outcomes in various tumors. However, the results from each study were unfortunately insufficient and not completely consistent. Therefore, we conduct a systematic meta-analysis to evaluate the value for a feasible biomarker for metastasis and prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: CCAT2; cancer; clinical outcome; lncRNA; meta-analysis.
Year: 2017 PMID: 28638466 PMCID: PMC5479257 DOI: 10.7150/jca.18626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1The flow diagram of the meta-analysis
Characteristics of studies in this meta-analysis
| Author | Year | Country | Tumor type | Sample size | CCAT2 expression | CCAT2 assay | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High expression | High with LNM | High with DM | Low expression | Low with LNM | Low with DM | ||||||
| Zheng JF | 2016 | China | PC | 96 | 59 | 10 | 32 | 37 | 5 | 8 | RT-qPCR |
| Chen SF | 2016 | China | SCLC | 112 | 56 | 45 | 14 | 56 | 22 | 0 | RT-qPCR |
| Huang SY | 2016 | China | OC | 109 | 55 | NA | 36 | 54 | NA | 6 | RT-qPCR |
| Wang CY | 2015 | China | GC | 85 | 44 | 28 | 11 | 41 | 8 | 3 | RT-qPCR |
| Chen X | 2015 | China | CSCC | 123 | 62 | 34 | NA | 61 | 11 | NA | RT-qPCR |
| Li JF | 2016 | China | BC1 | 48 | 28 | 1 | NA | 20 | 2 | NA | RT-qPCR |
| Zhang XL | 2015 | China | ESCC | 227 | 114 | 65 | NA | 113 | 48 | NA | RT-qPCR |
| Cai Y | 2015 | China | BC2 | 67 | 25 | NA | NA | 42 | NA | NA | RT-qPCR |
PC prostate cancer, SCLC small cell lung cancer, OC Ovarian cancer, GC gastric cancer, CSCC cervical squamous cell cancer, BC1 bladder cancer, ESCC esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, BC2 breast cancer, qRT-PCR quantitative real-time PCR, LNM lymph node metastasis, DM distant metastasis, NA not available.
Figure 3Forest plot for the association between CCAT2 expression levels with DM
Survival data of the eligible studies in this meta-analysis
| Author | Year | Tumor type | Sample size | Survival analysis | Multivariate analysis | HR statistic | Hazard ratios(95% CI) | RNA extraction | Reference control | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS | PFS | OS | PFS | ||||||||
| Zheng JF | 2016 | PC | 96 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Data in paper | 2.292 (1.370-3.528) | 2.276 (1.199-2.768) | TRIzol(Invitrogen) | GAPDH |
| Chen SF | 2016 | SCLC | 112 | Yes | NA | Yes | Data in paper | 2.034 (1.216-3.402) | NA | RNAiso Plus (TAKARA) | GAPDH |
| Huang SY | 2016 | OC | 109 | Yes | NA | Yes | Data in paper | 2.938 (1.526-5.873) | NA | TRIzol(Invitrogen) | GAPDH |
| Wang CY | 2015 | GC | 85 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Data in paper | 2.405 (1.194-5.417) | 2.315 (1.097-5.283) | TRIzol(Invitrogen) | GAPDH |
| Chen X | 2015 | CSCC | 123 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Data in paper | 2.813 (1.504-6.172) | 3.072 (1.716-8.174) | TRIzol(Invitrogen) | GAPDH |
| Zhang XL | 2015 | ESCC | 227 | Yes | NA | Yes | Data in paper | 1.432 (1.005-2.041) | NA | Total Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit (Ambion) | RNU6B |
| Cai Y | 2015 | BC1 | 67 | Yes | NA | No | Survival curve | 3.87 ( 1.57-9.50 ) | NA | TRIzol(Thermo) | GAPDH |
OS Overall survival, PFS progression free survival, PC prostate cancer, SCLC small cell lung cancer, OC Ovarian cancer, GC gastric cancer, CSCC cervical squamous cell cancer, BC1 breast cancer, ESCC esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, Y Yes, NA not available, 95%CI 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4Forest plot for the association between CCAT2 expression levels with OS
Figure 5Forest plot for the association between CCAT2 expression levels with PFS
Subgroup analysis of the role of CCAT2 in LNM in different types of cancer
| Subgroup | No. of studies | No. of patients | Test of Relationship | Test of Heterogeneity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | Q value | I2, % | ||||||
| Overall | 6 | 691 | 3.09 (1.53-6.26) | <0.01 | 15.68 | 0.005 | 70 | |
| Sample size | ||||||||
| < 100 | 3 | 229 | 1.91 (0.38-9.57) | 0.43 | 8.03 | 0.02 | 75 | |
| ≥ 100 | 3 | 462 | 3.77 (1.57-9.05) | <0.01 | 8.72 | 0.01 | 77 | |
| Tumor type | ||||||||
| Digestive system | 2 | 312 | 3.37 (0.87-13.11) | 0.08 | 5.95 | 0.01 | 83 | |
| Urinary system | 2 | 144 | 1.02 (0.36-2.92) | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.33 | 0 | |
| Others | 2 | 235 | 5.89 (3.26-10.64) | <0.01 | 0.05 | 0.82 | 0 | |
| Reference control | ||||||||
| GAPDH | 5 | 464 | 3.66 (1.67-8.03) | <0.01 | 10.35 | 0.03 | 61 | |
| RNU6B | 1 | 227 | 1.80 (1.06-3.04) | 0.03 | - | - | - | |
| RNA extraction | ||||||||
| TRIzol | 4 | 352 | 2.88 (1.01-8.22) | <0.05 | 9.39 | 0.02 | 68 | |
| Others | 2 | 339 | 3.22 (0.94-11.01) | 0.06 | 6.09 | 0.01 | 84 | |
LNM, lymph node metastasis; OR, odds ratio; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval.
Figure 6Sensitivity analysis for the association between CCAT2 expression levels with LNM
Figure 8Funnel plot analysis of potential publication bias for LNM
Figure 9Funnel plot analysis of potential publication bias for OS