| Literature DB >> 29487718 |
Rui-Hua Liu1, Ming-Ying Wang1,2, Ling-Yun Chen3,2, Zhi-Jie Yin1, Qian-Kun Ji1, Yang-Yang Wang1, Bao-Zhe Jin1.
Abstract
LncRNA actin filament-associated protein 1 antisense RNA 1 (AFAP1-AS1) is often dysregulated in cancer. We performed this meta-analysis to clarify the usefulness of AFAP1-AS1 as a prognostic marker in malignant tumors. The PubMed, Medline, OVID, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to Augest 7, 2017. Sixteen studies with a total of 1,386 patients were included in the study. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) suggested high AFAP1-AS1 expression correlated with poor overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.71-2.28), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.22-1.95), and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 2.17, 95% CI:1.64-2.88) in cancer patients, without obvious heterogeneity. High AFAP1-AS1 expression also correlated with larger tumor size (odds ratio (OR) = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.54-2.72), advanced tumor stage (OR=2.35, 95% CI: 1.70-3.26), poor histological grade (OR =1.39, 95% CI: 1.02-1.90), lymph node metastasis (OR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.98-3.72) and distant metastasis (OR = 2.96, 95% CI: 2.03-4.32). Thus high AFAP1-AS1 expression is predictive of poor OS, DFS, PFS, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, histological grade, larger tumor size and tumor stage, which suggests high AFAP1-AS1 expression may serve as a novel biomarker of poor prognosis in cancer.Entities:
Keywords: AFAP1-AS1; LncRNA; metastasis; neoplasms; prognosis
Year: 2017 PMID: 29487718 PMCID: PMC5814285 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23568
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flowchart presented the steps of study selection in this meta-analysis
The basic information and data of all included studies in the meta-analysis
| Study | Year | Region | Tumor type | Sample size | AFAP1-AS1 expression | Cut-off value | HR(95% CI) High/Low OS | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Low | |||||||||||||||||
| Total | LTS | HTS | PHG | LNM | DM | Total | LTS | HTS | PHG | LNM | DM | |||||||
| Deng [ | 2015 | China | NSCLC | 121 | 66 | - | 40 | - | 37 | 43 | 55 | - | 15 | - | 17 | 25 | - | 8.947 (3.115–25.694) |
| Fu [ | 2016 | China | PDAC | 80 | 40 | 26 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 3 | 40 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 16 | 5 | Median | 1.678 (0.851–3.310) |
| Li [ | 2016 | China | CRC | 30 | 15 | - | 5 | - | - | - | 15 | - | 5 | - | - | - | - | 3.39 (1.334–8.614) |
| Lu [ | 2016 | China | HCC | 156 | 78 | 28 | 65 | - | - | - | 78 | 14 | 51 | - | - | - | Median | 1.99 (1.15–3.45) |
| Lu [ | 2017 | China | CAA | 56 | 28 | 17 | 16 | - | - | - | 28 | 8 | 6 | - | - | - | Median | 2.31 (1.1352–4.7006) |
| Luo [ | 2016 | China | ESCC | 70 | 50 | 7 | 21 | - | - | - | 20 | 1 | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Ma [ | 2016 | China | GBC | 40 | 19 | 14 | 12 | 8 | 12 | - | 21 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 11 | - | Median | 1.95 (1.01–3.76) |
| Qiao [ | 2017 | China | GC | 87 | 44 | 33 | 33 | 23 | 20 | 19 | 43 | 30 | 19 | 16 | 10 | 8 | Median | 1.66 (1.1128–2.4763) |
| Tang [ | 2017 | China | NPC | 96 | 68 | - | - | - | - | 43 | 28 | - | - | - | - | 9 | - | 1.59 (1.2062–2.0958) |
| Wang [ | 2016 | China | CRC | 52 | 26 | 19 | 21 | 14 | - | 15 | 26 | 10 | 10 | 9 | - | 4 | Median | 2.358 (1.110–5.008) |
| Yang [ | 2016a | China | OC | 130 | 65 | 33 | 41 | 39 | - | - | 65 | 27 | 25 | 35 | - | - | - | - |
| Yang [ | 2016b | China | TNBC | 102 | 51 | 3 | 21 | - | 38 | 8 | 51 | 1 | 10 | - | 26 | 1 | Median | - |
| Ye [ | 2015 | China | PDAC | 90 | 45 | - | 32 | 13 | 35 | - | 45 | - | 34 | 9 | 18 | - | Median | 2.26 (1.48–3.44) |
| Zhang [ | 2016 | China | HCC | 78 | 57 | 27 | 26 | 39 | - | - | 21 | 6 | 11 | 8 | - | - | - | 1.471 (0.987–2.626) |
| Zhou [ | 2016 | China | ESCC | 162 | 81 | 28 | 53 | 23 | 55 | 22 | 81 | 25 | 30 | 22 | 32 | 9 | Median | 2.665 (1.838–3.865) |
| Zhuang [ | 2017 | China | LUAD | 36 | 20 | - | - | - | - | - | 16 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Note: The dashes represent no data.
Abbreviations: NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; CRC, colorectal cancer; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; CAA, cholangiocarcinoma; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; GBC, gallbladder cancer; GC, gastric cancer; NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma; CRC, colorectal cancer;OC, ovarian cancer;TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; LUAD, lung adenocarcinoma; LTS, lager tumor size; HTS, high tumor stage; PHG, poor histological grade; LNM, lymph node metastasis; DM, distant metastasis; OS, overall survival;HR, hazard ratio.
Figure 2Forest plot showed the association between OS and AFAP1-AS1 expression level in cancer
Figure 3Forest plot showed the association between DFS, PFS and AFAP1-AS1 expression level in cancer
Figure 4Forest plot showed the association between tumor size and AFAP1-AS1 expression level in cancer
Figure 5Forest plot showed the correlation between tumor stage and AFAP1-AS1 expression level in cancer
Figure 6Forest plot of studies evaluated the correlation between histological grade and AFAP1-AS1 expression level in cancer
Figure 7Forest plot of studies evaluated the correlation between lymph node metastasis and AFAP1-AS1 expression level in cancer
Figure 8Forest plot of studies evaluated the relationship between distant metastasis and AFAP1-AS1 expression level in cancer
Figure 9Funnel plot analysis of potential publication bias in survival and clinicopathological parameters group
(A) OS, (B) DPF + PFS, (C) tumor size, (D) tumor stage, (E) histological grade, (F) lymph node metastasis, (G) distant metastasis.