| Literature DB >> 29285514 |
Chenkui Miao1, Kai Zhao2, Jundong Zhu1, Chao Liang1, Aiming Xu1, Yibo Hua1, Jianzhong Zhang1, Shouyong Liu1, Ye Tian1, Chao Zhang1, Yuhao Wang1, Shifeng Su1, Zengjun Wang1, Bianjiang Liu1.
Abstract
Recent researches have demonstrated that long noncoding RNA linc00152 was aberrantly upregulated in multiple tumor types. High expression of linc00152 was associated with poor outcomes in cancer patients. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate its potential value as a prognostic predictor in various human neoplasms. Eligible studies were searched through several electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Eight original studies including 752 cancer patients were ultimately enrolled. Statistical analysis suggested that overexpression of linc00152 was significantly correlated with unfavorable overall survival (OS) (HR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.59-2.64) and disease-free/progression-free survival (DFS/PFS) (HR = 3.52, 95% CI: 1.82-6.79) in cancer patients. In addition, a significant correlation was observed between aberrant linc000152 expression and lymph node metastasis (LNM) (OR = 2.49, 95% CI: 1.57-3.94) but not in vessel invasion (VI) (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.54-1.93) and distant metastasis (DM) (OR = 0.600, 95% CI: 0.213-1.689). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that high linc00152 expression significantly predicted inferior OS and DFS/PFS in multiple neoplasms, as well as advanced LNM and VI. Linc00152 may serve as a potential indicator in predicting poor outcomes and metastases of diverse cancers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29285514 PMCID: PMC5733223 DOI: 10.1155/2017/6010721
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Main characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis.
| Study | Year | Tumor type | Case nationality | Median or mean age | Dominant ethnicity | Study design | Main pathological type | Tumor stage | Detected sample | Outcome measures | Source of HR | Maximum months of follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen et al. | 2017 | Lung adenocarcinoma | China | 65 | Asian | R | AdenoCA | 24/36 (I-II/IIIa) | Tissue | OS/PFS | SC | 40 |
| Wu et al. | 2016 | ccRCC | China | 60 | Asian | R | AdenoCA | 22/55 (I/II–IV) | Tissue | OS | Reported | 80 |
| Hu et al. | 2016 | ESCC | China | 54.29 | Asian | R | SqCa | 133/72 (I-II/III-IV) | Plasma | OS | Reported | 60 |
| Cai et al. | 2016 | Gallbladder cancer | China | 60 | Asian | R | AdenoCA | 17/23 (I-II/III-IV) | Tissue | NR | NR | NR |
| Cai et al. | 2016 | Gallbladder cancer | China | 60 | Asian | R | AdenoCA | 13/22 (I-II/III-IV) | Tissue | OS | SC | 40 |
| Yue et al. | 2016 | Colon cancer | China | 65 | Asian | R | AdenoCA | 66/68 (II/III) | Tissue | OS/DFS | Reported | 100 |
| Chen et al. | 2016 | Gastric cancer | China | 60 | Asian | R | AdenoCA | 32/16 (I-II/III-IV) | Tissue | OS | Reported | 60 |
| Ji et al. | 2015 | HCC | China | 60 | Asian | R | AdenoCA | 61/41 (I-II/III-IV) | Tissue | NR | NR | NR |
Study design is described as retrospective (R). AdenoCA, adenocarcinoma; SqCa, squamous carcinoma; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival. ccRCC, clear cell renal cell carcinoma; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma. NR, not reported; SC, survival curve.
HRs and 95% CIs of cancer prognosis and progression associated with linc00152 expression in included studies.
| Study | Year | Tumor type | Main assay method | Cut-off value | Case number of linc00152 expression | OS |
| DFS/PFS |
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | High with LNM | High with DM | High with VI | Low | Low with LNM | Low with DM | Low with VI | HR (95% CI) (U/M) | HR (95% CI) (U/M) | |||||||
| Chen et al. | 2017 | Lung adenocarcinoma | qRT-PCR | Median | 30 | 25 | NR | NR | 30 | 13 | NR | NR | 2.31 (0.66–8.04) U | 0.005 | 3.43 (1.10–10.69) U | <0.001 |
| Wu et al. | 2016 | ccRCC | qRT-PCR | Mean | 38 | NR | 8 | 4 | 39 | NR | 12 | 11 | 2.577 (1.233–5.387) M | 0.012 | NR | NR |
| Hu et al. | 2016 | ESCC | qRT-PCR | NR | 131 | NR | NR | NR | 74 | NR | NR | NR | 1.888 (1.220–2.581) M | 0.0028 | NR | NR |
| Cai et al. | 2016 | Gallbladder cancer | qRT-PCR | Median | 23 | 15 | NR | 6 | 17 | 5 | NR | 3 | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Cai et al. | 2016 | Gallbladder cancer | qRT-PCR | Median | 18 | 12 | NR | NR | 17 | 5 | NR | NR | 2.14 (0.53–8.57) U | <0.05 | NR | NR |
| Yue et al. | 2016 | Colon cancer | qRT-PCR | Median | 98 | 50 | NR | 7 | 38 | 18 | NR | 1 | 3.67 (1.64–8.21) M | 0.002 | 3.56 (1.59–7.97) M | 0.002 |
| Chen et al. | 2016 | Gastric cancer | qRT-PCR | Median | 49 | 43 | NR | NR | 48 | 34 | NR | NR | 1.659 (1.008–2.731) M | 0.047 | NR | NR |
| Ji et al. | 2015 | HCC | qRT-PCR | Median | 51 | NR | NR | 9 | 51 | NR | NR | 6 | NR | NR | NR | NR |
The source of HR and 95% CI was extracted from survival curves or article reports. HR calculated from survival curves; SC, survival curve; U, univariate analysis; M, multivariate analysis; NR, not reported. ccRCC, clear cell renal cell carcinoma; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma. LNM, lymph node metastasis; DM, distant metastasis; VI, vessel invasion; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival. qRT-qPCR, reverse transcriptase-quantitative PCR.
Figure 2Forest plots of combined analyses associated with linc00152 expression. (a) Overall survival (OS); (b) disease-free survival/progression-free survival (DFS/PFS); (c) lymph node metastasis (LNM); (d) vessel invasion (VI).
Figure 3Forest plots of stratified analysis of the OS (a) stratified by data source subgroup; (b) stratified by cut-off subgroup; (c) stratified by pathological subgroup; (d) stratified by sample subgroup; (e) stratified by tumor subgroup.
Figure 4Begg's funnel plots of publication bias test. (a) Overall survival (OS); (b) disease-free survival/progression-free survival (DFS/PFS); (c) lymph node metastasis (LNM); (d) vessel invasion (VI).
Figure 5Sensitivity analysis under specific model. (a) Effect of individual studies on the combined HR for OS; (b) effect of individual studies on the combined HR for DFS/PFS; (c) effect of individual studies on the pooled HR for LNM; (d) effect of individual studies on the pooled HR for VI.