| Literature DB >> 28938655 |
Na Li1, Meilan Yang1, Ke Shi2, Wei Li2.
Abstract
Accumulating evidences indicated that tumor suppressor candidate 7 (TUSC7) is a putatively tumor suppressor gene in various tumors. We carried out current systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the decreased expression of TUSC7 associate with prognostic and clinicopathological characteristic in cancer patients. A literature collection search in the online electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI was conducted to obtain eligible studies (up to February 20, 2017). A total of nine studies comprise 757 patients were identified and included in present meta-analysis based on the selection and inclusion criteria. Overall, low expression of TUSC7 was associated with significantly unfavorable overall survival (OS) (HR = 2.90, 95% CI: 2.12-3.98, P < 0.001), disease free survival (DFS) (HR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.49-2.68, P < 0.001) and disease-specific survival (DSS) (HR = 2.57, 95% CI: 1.23-5.39, P = 0.012) in tumors patients. Moreover, we also found that down-regulation of TUSC7 associated with distant metastasis (OR = 2.85, 95% CI: 1.46-5.55, P = 0.002) and larger tumor size (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.23-0.72, P = 0.002). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that cancers patients detected with low TUSC7 expression were more prone to develop distant metastasis. TUSC7 might act as a potentially and promising common prognostic markers in some solid tumors.Entities:
Keywords: TUSC7; cancer; clinical outcome; prognosis
Year: 2017 PMID: 28938655 PMCID: PMC5601751 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.18496
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow diagram of the literature search and selection
Main characteristics of the include studies for prognostic
| Study | Region | Tumor type | Sample size | Test method | Cut-off | Outcome measure | HR estimation | Follow-up (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qi 2013 | China | CRC | 81 | qRT-PCR | mean value | DFS/DSS | Directly | ~60 |
| Ding 2014 | China | PDAC | 85 | qRT-PCR | mean value | OS | Directly | ~60 |
| Tong 2014 | China | ESCC | 142 | qRT-PCR | median value | OS/DFS | Directly | ~36 |
| Qi 2015 | China | GC | 78 | qRT-PCR | mean value | DFS/DSS | Directly | Over 60 |
| Cong 2016 | China | OSA | 82 | qRT-PCR | NA | OS | Directly | Over 110 |
| Shang 2016 | China | Glioma | 39 | qRT-PCR | NA | OS | Directly | ~40 |
| Wang Y 2016 | China | HCC | 75 | qRT-PCR | mean value | OS/DFS | Directly | ~36 |
| Wang Z 2016 | China | NSCLC | 112 | qRT-PCR | median value | OS/DFS | Directly | Over 60 |
| Xu 2017 | China | CRC | 63 | qRT-PCR | mean value | OS | Directly | Over 100 |
PDAC: pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; GC: gastric cancer; ESCC: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; OSA: osteosarcoma; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; NSCLC: non-small-cell lung cancer; CRC: colorectal cancer; OS: overall survival; DFS: disease free survival; DSS: disease-specific survival; qRT-PCR: quantitative real-time PCR; NA: not available.
Figure 2Forest plot for the relationships between decreased TUSC7 expression and OS
Figure 3Forest plot for the relationships between decreased TUSC7 expression and DFS/DSS
Odds ratio for the association between decreased TUSC7 expression and clinicopathological parameters
| Clinicopathological parameter | Patients size | OR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | ||||||
| Gender (Male vs. Female) | 495 | 0.74 (0.51–1.06) | 0.102 | 0.0% | 0.456 | Fixed effects |
| Clinical stage ( I/II vs. III/IV) | 495 | 0.84 (0.23–3.14) | 0.800 | 91.1.0% | < 0.001 | Random effects |
| Lymph node metastasis (Yes vs. No) | 420 | 2.31 (0.92–5.82) | 0.076 | 80.2% | 0.002 | Random effects |
| Distant metastasis (Yes vs. No) | 223 | 2.85 (1.46–5.55) | 0.0% | 0.644 | Fixed effects | |
| Depth of invasion (T1/T2 vs. T3/T4) | 308 | 0.80 (0.49–1.29) | 0.358 | 0.0% | 0.725 | Fixed effects |
| Tumor size (< 5 cm vs. ≥ 5 cm) | 217 | 0.41 (0.23–0.72) | 39.5% | 0.199 | Fixed effects | |
Figure 4The sensitivity analysis for the meta-analysis of OS or DFS in tumor patients
(A) OS group; (B) DFS group.
Figure 5Funnel plot analysis of potential publication bias for meta-analysis
(A) DFS group; (B) OS group.