| Literature DB >> 29484141 |
Hua Li1, Shubo Chen2, Hui Li3, Jianxin Cui4, Yunhe Gao4, Dianchao Wu1, Shangfeng Luan1, Yan Qin1, Tongshan Zhai1, Dengxiang Liu5, Zhibin Huo1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests that dysregulation of phosphatidylinositol-4, 5-bisphosphate 3-kinase, catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) plays an important role in carcinogenesis. However, the relationship between PIK3CA expression and gastric cancer (GC) prognosis remains controversial.Entities:
Keywords: PIK3CA; alteration; gastric cancer; meta-analysis; prognosis
Year: 2018 PMID: 29484141 PMCID: PMC5800933 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow chart of study selection process
Major characteristics of the selected studies
| No. | First author | Year | Number | Sex(M/F) | Age | Region | TNM Stagea | Alteration type | Detection method | Treatment | Follow up | HR estimate | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | S Barbi [ | 2010 | 264 | 175/89 | 67.4(median) | Italy | I-IV | Gene mutation(exon 9,20) | Direct sequencing | R0 Only | NR | Provided(M) | 7 |
| 2 | J Shi [ | 2012 | 131 | 102/29 | NR | China | I-IV | Gene mutation(exon 9,20) and amplification | Direct sequencing and qPCR | R0/R1 | NR | Provided(M) | 7 |
| 3 | Y Sukawa [ | 2012 | 231 | 157/74 | 71(25-91) | Japan | IB-IV | Gene mutation(exon 9,20) | Pyrosequence | NR | NR | FC | 5 |
| 4 | AFC Okines [ | 2013 | 337(303)b | 263/74 | 63(median) | UK | I-IIIC | Gene mutation(exon 9,20) | Direct sequencing | R0 Only/R0+Chemotherapy | NR | FC | 9 |
| 5 | ML Chong [ | 2013 | 79 | 64/15 | 53% (≥69) | Singapore | I-IV | Gene amplification | qPCR | R0 Only | 15(1-131) | Provided(U) | 8 |
| 6 | H Lee [ | 2015 | 110 | 83/27 | 50% (≥60) | Korea | I-III | Gene mutation (exon9,20) and Amplification | Direct sequence and qPCR | R0 Only | 82.2(3.7-158.8) | FC | 7 |
| 7 | M Liang [ | 2015 | 107 | NR | NR | China | I-IV | Protein overexpression | IHC | R0/R1 | NR | FC | 5 |
| 8 | K Harada [ | 2016 | 208 | 148/60 | NR | Japan | I-IV | Gene mutation(exon 9,20) | Pyrosequencing | R0 Only | 60 | FC | 7 |
| 9 | M Dong [ | 2016 | 568 | 396/172 | 52.3% (≥60) | China | I-IV | Protein overexpression | IHC | R0/R1 | 37.2(0-93.8) | FC | 7 |
| 10 | SH Jang [ | 2016 | 178 | 127/51 | 68%(≥55) | Korea | I-IV | Protein overexpression | IHC | R0+Chemotherapy | 58(0-95) | Provided(M) | 7 |
| 11 | JW Kim [ | 2017 | 302 | 202/100 | 20.2%(≥70) | Korea | I-IV | Gene mutation | qPCR(exon 1,4,7,9,20) | R0/R1 | NR | FC | 7 |
aAmerican Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition TNM stage system. b The actual number of patients analyzing PIK3CA status and survival was 303. FC: figure calculation; HR: hazard ratio; IHC: immunohistochemistry; M/F: male to female ratio; M: multivariate analysis; NOS: Newcastle–Ottawa Scale; NR: not reported; qPCR: quantitative polymerase chain reaction; U: univariate analysis; R0: radical resection; R1: palliative surgery.
Figure 2Forest plot of hazard ratios for overall survival of gastric cancer patients and PIK3CA overexpression stratified by PIK3CA alteration measurement
Subgroup analysis of PIK3CA status and patients’ survival
| Subgroup | PIK3CA overexpression | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studies (Patients) | HR (95%CI) | Heterogeneity | Studies (Patients) | HR (95%CI) | Heterogeneity | |||
| I2 (%) | I2 (%) | |||||||
| Method | ||||||||
| IHC | 3(853) | 1.94(1.52-2.47) | 0 | 0.507 | / | / | / | / |
| qPCR and direct sequence | 3(320) | 1.57(0.92-2.69) | 49.8 | 0.137 | 5(1110) | 1.04(0.79-1.38) | 0.0 | 0.840 |
| Pyrosequence | / | / | / | / | 2(439) | 1.10(0.68-1.78) | 0.0 | 0.476 |
| Treatment | ||||||||
| R0 | 3(367) | 1.25(0.86-1.83) | 0 | 0.850 | 4(885) | 0.99(0.71-1.38) | 0.0 | 0.889 |
| R0/R1 | 3(806) | 2.13(1.67-2.72) | 0 | 0.796 | 2(433) | 1.07(0.69-1.65) | 0.0 | 0.351 |
| NR | / | / | / | / | 1(231) | 1.27(0.68-2.37) | / | / |
| Race | ||||||||
| Mongolian | 6(1173) | 1.79(1.42-2.27) | 17.9 | 0.297 | 5(982) | 1.08(0.79-1.47) | 0 | 0.845 |
| Caucasian | / | / | / | / | 2(567) | 1.02(0.69-1.51) | 0 | 0.466 |
| Analysis method | ||||||||
| Multivariate | 2(309) | 1.89(1.01-3.53) | 49.4 | 0.160 | 2(395) | 1.17(0.78-1.77) | 0 | 0.453 |
| Univariate | 4(864) | 1.74(1.31-2.33) | 26.5 | 0.253 | 5(1154) | 1.00(0.74-1.35) | 0 | 0.906 |
| HR evaluation | ||||||||
| Provided | 3(388) | 1.72(1.11-2.64) | 23.1 | 0.272 | 2(395) | 1.17(0.78-1.77) | 0 | 0.453 |
| Calculated | 3(785) | 1.80(1.28-2.53) | 40.5 | 0.186 | 5(1154) | 1.00(0.74-1.35) | 0 | 0.906 |
HR: hazard ratio; R0: radical resection; R1: palliative surgery; NR: not reported; CI: confidence interval; I2: inconsistency index.
Figure 3Forest plot of hazard ratios for overall survival of gastric cancer patients with PIK3CA gene mutations
Meta-analysis of the association between PIK3CA alterations and clinicopathological features of gastric cancer patients
| PIK3CA overexpression Stratification | No. of studies | No. of patients | Pooled OR (95%CI) | Heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2(%) | |||||
| Gender (M/F) | 3 | 877 | 1.03 (0.77-1.39) | 0 | 0.380 |
| Lymph node metastasis (N0/N1-3) | 3 | 877 | 2.23 (0.53-9.36) | 91.1 | <0.001 |
| Distant metastasis (M1/M0) | 2 | 1326 | 3.11 (0.35-27.42) | 79 | 0.029 |
| TNM stage (I+II/III+IV)a | 3 | 877 | 0.52 (0.09-2.96) | 95 | <0.001 |
| Differentiation (Well+Moderate/Poor) | 2 | 308 | 1.31 (0.20-8.74) | 88 | 0.004 |
| Tumor size (<5cm vs ≥5cm) | 2 | 699 | 4.43 (0.55-35.43) | 85.8 | 0.008 |
| Lauren classification (Intestinal/diffuse) | 2 | 661 | 0.97 (0.16-6.04) | 95.8 | <0.001 |
| Gender (M/F) | 6 | 1200 | 0.93 (0.64-1.36) | 0 | 0.822 |
| Lymph node metastasis (N0/N1-3) | 6 | 1183 | 0.95 (0.63-1.42) | 0 | 0.762 |
| TNM stage (I+II/III+IV)a | 3 | 614 | 0.66 (0.39-1.12) | 0 | 0.511 |
| Differentiation (Well+Moderate/Poor) | 2 | 386 | 0.37 (0.17-0.79) | 0 | 0.522 |
| Lauren classification (Intestinal/diffuse) | 5 | 1009 | 0.76 (0.41-1.43) | 52.7 | 0.076 |
| Microsatellite instability (MSI/MSS) | 2 | 566 | 0.68 (0.15-3.06) | 82.9 | 0.016 |
aAmerican Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition TNM stage system. CI: confidence interval; I2: inconsistency index; MSI: microsatellite instability.
MSS: microsatellite stability; OR: odds ratio.
Figure 4Funnel plot evaluation of potential publication bias on the effect of PIK3CA overexpression (A) and mutation (B) on overall survival of gastric cancer patients.