Literature DB >> 29750053

Prognostic value of microRNAs in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Song Gao1, Zhi-Ying Zhao2, Rong Wu1, Yue Zhang3, Zhen-Yong Zhang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown that miRNA levels are closely related to the survival time of patients with colon, rectal, or colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the outcomes of different investigations have been inconsistent. Accordingly, a meta-analysis was conducted to study associations among the three types of cancers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies published in English that estimated the expression levels of miRNAs with survival curves in CRC were identified until May 20, 2017 by online searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library by two independent authors. Pooled HRs with 95% CIs were used to estimate the correlation between miRNA expression and overall survival.
RESULTS: A total of 63 relevant articles regarding 13 different miRNAs, with 10,254 patients were ultimately included. CRC patients with high expression of blood miR141 (HR 2.52, 95% CI 1.68-3.77), tissue miR21 (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.12-1.53), miR181a (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26-1.83), or miR224 (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.04-4.34), or low expression of tissue miR126 (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.24-1.93) had significantly poor overall survival (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: In general, blood miR141 and tissue miR21, miR181a, miR224, and miR126 had significant prognostic value. Among these, blood miR141 and tissue miR224 were strong biomarkers of prognosis for CRC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  colorectal cancer; meta-analysis; microRNA; prognosis

Year:  2018        PMID: 29750053      PMCID: PMC5935085          DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S157493

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Manag Res        ISSN: 1179-1322            Impact factor:   3.989


Introduction

Numerous researchers have studied the associations between miRNA expression and the survival outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.1–258 CRC has a 10% cancer incidence and mortality worldwide,259 and thus, it is one of the most serious diseases threatening human health. Despite great success in the treatment of CRC, the prognosis of CRC patients is still poor. Therefore, it is fundamental for the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of CRC patients to understand its emphasized molecular origin.260 Despite a comprehensive study about the mechanisms of CRC, there are still some challenges that require recognizing prognostic biomarkers with minimal invasion and sensitivity. Accordingly, it is of vital significance to improve the survival rate of CRC patients, utilizing rapid and reliable tumor-prognosis biomarkers. miRNAs, small noncoding RNA gene products of approximately 22 nucleotides, are found in various types of organisms. They account for 2%–5% of the entire genome, number about 1,000, and regulate the expression of ≥20% of human genes.261 In addition, they play crucial roles in regulating the translation and degradation of mRNAs via base pairing to partially complementary sites, predominantly in the 3′-untranslated areas of mRNAs.262–264 In the study of CRC, a large number of articles have covered the fact that miRNAs are closely related to the survival time of patients.1–258 There were relatively small samples in these papers, and the present work aims to estimate the most accurate prognostic value between miRNA level and survival outcome of CRC patients, better to comprehend the miRNAs with prognostic pertinence that are potential candidates for clinical verification in the future.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

We used four online databases – PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library – to find pertinent literature published until May 20, 2017. The combination term “miR and colorectal cancer” was employed for the literature search. Two authors (S Gao and ZY Zhao) independently performed this comprehensive online search.

Inclusion criteria

Articles qualified if they satisfied the following criteria: patients with colon/rectal cancer or CRC; miRNA levels in tissue, plasma, or serum and survival results were measured; at least one survival curve was measured of overall survival (OS), cause-specific survival (CSS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS), with or without HRs/95% CIs; and full text published in English.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria were experimental studies, reviews, or letters without primary data and retracted papers; frequency of research evaluating prognostic value of miRNAs in tissue of four or less. Only the most comprehensive study was included for this meta-analysis if more than one paper had been published in the same research group.

Quality assessment

SG and ZY Zhao identified all qualifying studies analyzing the prognostic value of miRNAs in CRC, and YZ reevaluated uncertain data.

Study selection

A flow diagram of the study selection process is presented in Figure 1. Our study found 1,843 articles for consideration within this meta-analysis, and 322 articles suitable for assessment of prognostic miRNA signatures in CRC and full-text papers were acquired by evaluating titles and abstracts. On elaborate review of research methodologies, 64 investigations were excluded, the details of which are shown in Figure 1. On the basis of the exclusion criteria, 63 studies were finally included in this meta-analysis.
Figure 1

Flow diagram of literature search and selection.

Study frequency

The frequency of studies estimating the prognostic value of miRNAs in CRC are shown in Tables 1 (blood) and 2 (tissue), including miRNA name, number of studies estimating prognostic value, and references.
Table 1

Frequency of studies estimating prognostic value of blood miRNA expression in colorectal cancer

miRnReference(s)miRnReference(s)miRnReference(s)
15b11122116221126
17-3p12124-5p19324-3p112
19a13135117345112
21447139-5p118372127
23b18141214, 19628-5p112
26a19143112885-5p128
29a110155120886-3p112
29b1111831211290129
34a*1121941114772-3p130
92a210, 13196b1226826117
96114200b214, 166875117
103115200c123
106a12203224, 25

Note: Highlighted studies were included in the present meta-analysis.

Study characteristics

Literature with Kaplan–Meier survival curves for CRC are detailed in Table 3. If data were not provided visually and merely as curves, they were extracted from the curves, and estimated HRs with 95% CIs were subsequently calculated using the method of Tierney et al265 with Engauge Digitizer version 4.1 software. In addition, if outcomes of both univariate and multiple covariates were covered, only the latter was chosen, because of adjustment for confounders.
Table 3

Characteristics of studies included on colorectal cancer

miRNAStudyCountry/sourceDesignSampleNumberStageCutoffMethodFollow-up (months)ResultHR (L/H)HR (H/L)95% CI
21Menéndez et al4SpainPSerum102I–IV1.00qRT-PCR36OSa0.500.25–1.02
DFSa0.510.25–1.06
21Toiyama et al5JapanRSerum188I–IV<0.01RT-qPCR84OSa4.121.10–15.40
21Monzo et al6SpainRPlasma52I–IVMedianTaqMan48DFSb2.320.80–6.71
21Tsukamoto et al7JapanRPlasma326I–IVMedianqRT-PCR84OSa2.281.81–5.74
259DFSa2.341.87–4.60
92aWang and Gu10ChinaRSerum74II–IV<0.06RT-qPCR35OSb1.170.70–1.97
92aLiu et al13ChinaRSerum166I–IV<0.01RT-qPCR53OSa4.361.64–11.57
141Cheng et al19China, USARPlasma258I–IVMedianRT-qPCR96OSa2.401.18–4.86
141Sun et al14USARPlasma168I–IVMeanRT-qPCR96OSb2.581.58—4.21
200bMaierthaler et al16Germany IRPlasma308I–IVMedianRT-qPCR>72OSa0.770.57–1.05
Germany II219OSa1.210.98–1.50
200bSun et al14USARPlasma169I–IVMeanRT-qPCR96OSb2.461.57–3.85
203Hur et al24JapanRSerum186I–IVROCRT-qPCR70OSa2.141.09–4.21
203Shi et al25ChinaRSerum180II–IVMedianRT-qPCR60OSb0.470.27–0.81
21Kulda et al59Czech RepublicRFrozen46I–IV8.10RT-qPCR56DFSb1.800.05–65.37
21Shibuya et al60JapanRFrozen156I–IVMeanTaqMan84OSa1.951.05–4.48
116DFSa2.531.15–5.59
21Nielsen et al61Denmark IRFFPE129II65%ISH>60OSb1.171.02–1.34
DFSa1.291.06–1.56
Denmark II67OSb0.970.83–1.13
DFSa0.850.73–1.01
21Faltejskova et al62Czech RepublicRTissue44I–IVMedianRT-qPCR86OSb2.720.63–11.83
21Kjaer-Frifeldt et al63DenmarkPFFPE520IIMeanISH84OSa1.080.97–1.22
RF-CSSa1.411.19–1.67
21Schee et al64NorwayPFrozen193I–IIIMedianqRT-PCR>60MFSb1.170.59–2.32
21Chen et al65ChinaRTissue195I–IVMeanRT-qPCR>100OSa2.561.43–4.57
21Toiyama et al5JapanRFFPE166I–IV3.70RT-qPCR84OSa0.590.21–1.63
21Oue et al66JapanRFFPE87II–IIINoneqRT-PCR60OSa3.131.20–8.17
Germany145IIOSa2.651.06–6.66
21Bullock et al67UKPFrozen, FFPE50IIMeanqRT-PCR96OSb2.471.19–5.55
DFSb2.681.21–5.93
21Fukushima et al68JapanRFrozen306I–IVMeanRT-qPCR90OSa2.881.70–5.08
244DFSa2.941.68–5.36
21Kang et al69South KoreaRFFPE277IIA–IIICMedianISH80RFSa2.241.25–4.02
21Caritg et al58SpainRFrozen69II2.04TaqMan>140DFSb1.330.14–12.47
21Feiersinger et al70GermanyRFFPE29I–IVMedianqRT-PCR205.15OSb1.450.39–5.43
DFSb1.760.75–4.11
21Iseki et al71JapanRFFPE32None8.10qRT-PCR63.2OSa2.520.65–8.34
PFSa4.931.08–20.81
21Lee et al72South KoreaRFFPE170I–IVMedianISH105OSb0.930.54–1.60
21Mima et al73USA IPFFPE190/192I–IV25%RT-qPCR207.6OSa0.990.75–1.31
CSSa0.880.58–1.31
USA II192/19250%OSa1.030.78–1.35
CSSa1.100.75–1.60
USA III191/19275%OSa1.401.07–1.84
CSSa1.420.98–2.04
106aDíaz et al49SpainRFrozen110I–IVMedianRT-qPCR99OSa0.530.26–1.08
DFSa0.360.17–0.78
106aFeng et al111ChinaRFrozen28MB–NIBMedianqRT-PCR60MFSb3.630.56–23.68
106aSchee et al64NorwayPFrozen193I–IIIMedianqRT-PCR>60MFSb0.810.41–1.59
106aAk et al112TurkeyRFFPE40I–IVNoneqRT-PCR>200OSb0.940.35–2.56
106aBullock et al67UKPFrozen, FFPE50IIMeanqRT-PCR96OSb2.251.00–5.04
DFSb2.911.32–6.42
106aHao et al113ChinaRTissue138I–IV66%RT-qPCR>60OSa1.871.13–3.09
DFSa1.220.70–2.12
106aHao et al114ChinaRFFPE65I–IVMedianqRT-PCR>60OSb2.000.51–7.85
125bNishida et al119JapanRFrozen89NoneMedianRT-qPCR>96OSb2.420.99–5.91
125bAk et al112TurkeyRFFPE40I–IVNoneqRT-PCR>200OSb0.900.32–2.56
125bCappuzzo et al35ItalyRFFPE183NoneNoneNone48OSa0.580.32–1.05
125bRokavec et al106TCGARTissue438I–IVNoneDownloaded>133OSb1.881.36–2.60
125bSun et al33TCGARTissue107I–IVMedianDownloaded141.1OSb2.291.33–3.92
126Hansen et al120DenmarkRFFPE89NoneMedianISH58OSb1.931.13–3.29
83PFSb2.691.42–5.08
126Hansen et al121Sweden, DenmarkPFFPE89NoneMedianqRT-PCR>30PFSa2.041.19–3.45
126Hansen et al122DCCGPFFPE560IIMedianqRT-PCR84OSa1.321.00–1.72
RF-CSSa1.040.71–1.52
126Liu et al123ChinaRFrozen92I–IVNoneqRT-PCR92OSb2.651.00–6.98
126Ebrahimi et al124AustraliaRFFPE132I–IV<l/>2qRT-PCR>100OSb1.810.82–4.00
126Yuan et al125ChinaRTissue75I–IV0/>0ISH68OSb2.350.91–6.06
143Kulda et al59Czech RepublicRFrozen46I–IV11.40RT-qPCR56DFSb0.450.07–2.78
143Drebber et al150GermanyRFFPE40I–IV1.00RT-qPCR76.8OSb1.520.32–7.22
143Pichler et al151AustriaRFFPE77II–IVNoneqRT-PCR>125CSSa1.861.06–3.25
52PFSb1.550.91–2.66
143Guo et al152ChinaRTissue79I–IVMedianqRT-PCR122OSb1.450.69–3.07
143Ak et al112TurkeyRFFPE40I–IV1.76qRT-PCR>200OSb2.690.80–9.08
143Simmer et al153DCCGPFFPE55I–IVMedianTaqMan42PFSa0.450.24–0.85
145Drebber et al150GermanyRFFPE40I–IV0.10RT-qPCR76.8OSb1.950.43–8.79
145Schee et al64NorwayPFrozen193I–IIIMedianqRT-PCR>60MFSb0.610.30–1.22
145Pecqueux et al155GermanyRFrozen47NoneMedianRT-qPCR>60OSb3.731.45–9.55
145Zhou et al156ChinaRFrozen60I–IVMedianqRT-PCR80OSb2.571.12–5.90
DFSb2.581.12–5.94
145Sun et al33TCGARTissue107I–IVMedianDownloaded>144OSb0.520.30–0.77
181aNishimura et al165JapanRFrozen162I–IVMedianqRT-PCR>144OSb2.001.05–3.80
DFSb2.261.10–4.61
181aJi et al166China IRTissue137I–IVMedianRT-qPCR100OSa1.871.08–3.25
China IIFFPE2941.00ISHOSa1.381.11–1.72
181aPichler et al167AustriaRFFPE80II–IVNoneqRT-PCR>125CSSa0.630.37–1.21
54PFSb0.570.36–0.91
181aLi et al168ChinaRFrozen72I–IVNoneRT-qPCR>60OSb2.061.00–4.23
181aMiyoshi et al18TCGARTissue93II–IIINoneDownloaded135RFSb2.851.24–6.55
224Liao et al209ChinaRFrozen110I–IVMedianqRT-PCR87OSb1.820.88–3.79
224Yuan et al206ChinaRTissue108I–IIINoneqRT-PCR60OSa0.270.14–0.51
54DFSa0.070.02–0.25
224Zhang et al210ChinaRFrozen108I–II25.72qRT-PCR62.5DFSb1.870.79–4.41
224Adamopoulos et al211GreeceRFrozen104I–IV56%qRT-PCR120OSa4.411.72–11.34
91DFSa4.611.41–15.09
224Ling et al212TCGARTissue143I–IVNoneDownloaded72OSa2.880.97–8.56
Italy I54qRT-PCR115OSa2.770.95–8.11
Italy II68qRT-PCR115OSa4.140.96–17.76
Romania38qRT-PCR70OSa1.760.36–8.64
Austria74qRT-PCR130OSa2.361.32–4.21
UK41qRT-PCR60OSb4.921.31–18.46
MFSb6.511.97–21.51
429Li et al228ChinaRFrozen107I–IIIMedianqRT-PCR82OSb2.090.84–5.17
429Diaz et al149SpainRFrozen127I–IIINoneTaqMan113OSb0.350.16–0.77
429Sun et al229ChinaRFrozen84I–IVNoneqRT-PCR96OSb0.290.16–0.55
429Dong et al230ChinaRFrozen78I–IVMedianqRT-PCR60OSb2.661.25–5.68
429Han et al231ChinaRFrozen71I–IVMedianqRT-PCR60OSa1.851.02–3.33

Notes:

multiple-covariate analysis;

Univariate analysis;

Abbreviations: L/H, low versus high miRNA expression; H/L, high versus low miRNA expression; P, prospective; qRT-PCR, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; R, retrospective; RT-qPCR, reverse transcription qRT-PCR; RF-CSS, recurrence-free cause-specific survival; ROC, receiver-operating characteristic; FFPE, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded; ISH, in situ hybridization; MFS, metastasis-free survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival; CSS, cause-specific survival; TCGA, the Cancer Genome Atlas; DCCG, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

Statistical analyses

All analyses were performed utilizing Stata version 13.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Merged HRs were regarded as significant at the P<0.05 level if 95% CIs did not contain the value 1. Effect values for HRs were regarded as large if ≥2. HRs for OS were regarded as the prime reference standard if OS P-values were inconsistent with other survival outcomes with respect to the associated miRNA level. All analyses employed random-effect models instead of fixed-effect models, because there existed differences among the studies, including tissue detected (frozen or formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded), blood (plasma or serum), tumor stage (I–IV), cutoff values, and miRNA-analysis methods. Publication bias was measured by Begg’s funnel plot, and a two-tailed P-value <0.05 was regarded as significant. The trim-and-fill method was performed if publication bias occurred. Sensitivity analysis was employed to weigh how powerful merged HRs were after a single study had been removed. An individual study was suspected of having excess of influence if the point estimation was outside the 95% CI after removal from the analysis.

Results

Meta-analysis

An overview of HRs appraised from comprehensive analysis of all the miRNAs is given in Table 4. Thirteen miRNAs were involved in this meta-analysis: miR21, miR92a, miR106a, miR125b, miR126, miR141, miR143, miR145, miR181a, miR200b, miR203, miR224, and miR429. Results of survival analyses of these miRNAs are given in Figures 2–8.
Table 4

Meta-analysis results for miRNA expression in colorectal cancer

miRNASurvival analysisArticlesStudies includedHR95% CIFigureP-valueHeterogeneity (Higgins’s I2)Patients, n
High miR21OS34, 5, 71.560.47–5.2320.4785.2%, P<0.01616
High miR21DFS34, 6, 71.390.49–3.9620.5384.4%, P<0.01480
High miR92aOS210, 132.110.59–7.6120.2581.6%, P=0.02240
High miR141OS214, 192.521.68–3.772<0.010.0%, P=0.87426
High miR200bOS214, 161.280.75–2.1920.3688.8%, P<0.01696
High miR203OS224, 250.990.22–4.3720.9991.4%, P<0.01366
High miR21OS135, 60–68, 70–731.311.12–1.533A<0.0165.3%, P<0.012,861
High miR21OSa85, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 731.471.16–1.873A<0.0171.7%, P<0.012,372
High miR21DFS758–61, 67, 68, 701.641.11–2.413D0.0179.2%, P<0.01554
High miR21RFS/CSS/MFS/PFS563, 64, 69, 71, 731.331.06–1.673D0.0148.6%, P=0.071,787
High miR21OS, adjustedb1.130.96–1.344B0.1571.6%, P<0.01
High miR106aOS549, 67, 112–1141.310.72–2.3650.3862.2%, P=0.03403
High miR106aDFS/MFS549, 64, 67, 11, 1131.140.55–2.3650.7275.8%, P<0.01519
High miR125bOS533, 35, 106, 112, 1191.430.83–2.4750.1974.6%, P<0.01857
Low miR126OS5120, 122–1251.551.24–1.936<0.011.2%, P=0.40948
Low miR126PFS/RFS/CSS3120–1221.720.95–3.1060.0775.2%, P=0.02732
Low miR143DFS/CSS/PFS359, 151, 1531.000.47–2.1361.0077.7%, P<0.01230
Low miR143OS3112, 150, 1521.690.94–3.0460.080.0%, P=0.69159
Low miR145OS433, 150, 155, 1561.680.55–5.1270.3685.4%, P<0.01254
Low miR145MFS/DFS264, 1561.230.30–5.0670.7785.1%, P<0.01253
High miR181aOS3165, 166, 1681.521.26–1.837<0.010.0%, P=0.45665
High miR181aDFS/CSS/PFS/RFS318, 165, 671.170.53–2.5970.6984.0%, P<0.01309
High miR224OS4206, 209, 211, 2122.121.04–4.3480.0480.9%, P<0.01740
High miR224DFS/MFS4206, 210–2121.430.23–8.7780.7090.6%, P<0.01294
High miR429OS5146, 228–2311.000.39–2.5881.0088.7%, P<0.01467

Notes:

Multiple-covariate analysis;

adjusted with trim-and-fill method.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival; CSS, cause-specific survival; MFS, metastasis-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

Figure 2

Pooled analyses of OS or DFS in association with high blood miR21-, miR92a-, miR141-, miR200b-, and miR203-expression levels.

Note: Weights are from random-effect analysis.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival.

Figure 3

(A) Forest plots of pooled analyses of OS or OS (multiple-covariate analysis) in association with high tissue miR21-expression levels; (B) Begg’s funnel plot of publication bias for pooled analysis of OS in association with high tissue miR21-expression levels; (C) sensitivity analysis of pooled analysis of OS in association with high tissue miR21-expression levels; (D) forest plots of pooled analyses of DFS or RFS/CSS/MFS/PFS in association with high tissue miR21-expression levels. Weights are from random-effects analysis in A and D. aMultiple-covariate analysis; bunivariate analysis.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival; CSS, cause-specific survival; MFS, metastasis-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

Figure 4

(A) Funnel plot of pooled analysis adjusted with the trim-and-fill method of OS in association with high tissue miR21-expression levels. Circles, included studies; diamonds, presumed missing studies. (B) Forest plot of pooled analysis adjusted with the trim-and-fill method of OS in association with high tissue miR21-expression levels. (C) Sensitivity analysis of pooled analysis adjusted with the trim-and-fill method of OS in association with high tissue miR21-expression levels. Weights are from random-effects analysis. aMultiple-covariate analysis; bunivariate analysis.

Abbreviation: OS, overall survival.

Figure 5

Pooled analyses of OS or DFS/MFS in association with high tissue miR106a- and miR125b-expression levels. Weights are from random-effects analysis.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; MFS, metastasis-free survival; TCGA, the Cancer Genome Atlas.

Figure 6

Pooled analyses of OS, PFS/RFS/CSS, or DFS/CSS/PFS in association with low tissue miR126- and miR143-expression levels. Weights are from random-effects analysis.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; DCCG, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group; PFS, progression-free survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival; CSS, cause-specific survival; DFS, disease-free survival.

Figure 7

Pooled analyses of OS, MFS/DFS or DFS/CSS/PFS/RFS in association with high tissue miR145-expression levels or low tissue miR181a-expression levels. Weights are from random-effects analysis.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; TCGA, the Cancer Genome Atlas; MFS, metastasis-free survival; DFS, disease-free survival; CSS, cause-specific survival; PFS, progression-free survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival.

Figure 8

Pooled analyses of OS or DFS/MFS in association with high tissue miR224- and miR429-expression levels. Weights are from random-effects analysis.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; TCGA, the Cancer Genome Atlas; DFS, disease-free survival; MFS, metastasis-free survival.

CRC patients with high blood miR141, high tissue miR181a and miR224, or low tissue miR126 expression have significantly shorter OS

Two studies14,19 focused on associations between high blood miR141 levels and OS, indicating that CRC patients with high blood miR141 levels had significantly shorter OS than those with low miR141 expression (HR 2.52, 95% CI 1.68–3.77, P<0.01; Figure 2). Five papers120,122–125 stressed connections between low tissue miR126 levels and OS, suggesting that CRC patients with low expression of tissue miR126 levels had significantly poorer OS than those with high miR126 expression (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.24–1.93, P<0.01; Figure 6). Three articles concentrated on the relationship between high tissue miR181a levels and OS, demonstrating that CRC patients with high miR181a levels had significantly worse OS than those with low miR181a expression (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26–1.83, P<0.01; Figure 7). Four studies paid attention to correlations between high expression of tissue miR224 levels and OS, showing that CRC patients with high tissue miR224 levels had significantly shorter OS than those with low miR224 expression (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.04–4.34, P=0.04; Figure 8).

There was no significant relationship between high expression levels of blood miR21, miR92a, miR200b, miR203, tissue miR106a, miR125b, or miR429 or low expression levels of tissue miR143 or miR145 and OS

Details are given in Table 4 and Figures 2 and 5–8.

High tissue miR21 expression forecasts poor OS

Thirteen investigations5,60–68,70–73 analyzed the connection between high tissue miR21 levels and OS, showing that CRC patients with high tissue miR21 levels had significantly worse OS than those with low miR21 expression (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.12–1.53, P<0.01; Figure 3A).

Publication bias

To assess publications showing some degree of bias for OS of CRC patients with high tissue miR21 levels, our study used Begg’s funnel plot (Figure 3B). The P-value was less than 0.01, indicating the presence of publication bias. As such, the trim-and-fill method was performed and the pooled HR recalculated with presumed missing studies to estimate asymmetry in the funnel plot (Figure 4A), indicating no publication bias (P=0.73). The recalculated HR changed significance for OS (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96–1.34, P=0.15; Figure 4B).

Sensitivity analysis

For research on OS of CRC patients with high tissue miR21 levels, the sensitivity analysis did not manifest alterations during outcomes on the basis of the exclusion of any single investigation (Figure 3C), showing that no sole study significantly affected the merged HR or 95% CI. This also proved true for the outcome of OS adjusted with the trim-and-fill method (Figure 4C).

Key findings

We carried out a meta-analysis of 13 miRNAs and OS. Serving as the most investigated miRNA, miR21 (high tissue levels) in CRC showed significantly shorter OS than low tissue miR21 levels (P<0.05). However, there was no significant relationship between high blood miR21 levels and OS (P=0.47). The different detected sample types and relatively small sample capacity of the miR21 blood group (only three studies analyzing the relationship between blood miR21 levels and OS) may have been potential clinical reasons and caused the statistical significance between tissue and blood miR21 levels. Encouragingly, the HR from analysis of the association between high tissue miR21 levels and OS (multiple-covariate analysis)5,60,63,65,66,68,71,73 was 1.47, which was greater than that reported in any of the 13 articles.5,60–78,70–73 Nevertheless, the significance did not remain in accordance with the forest plot, which was adjusted with the trim-and-fill method because publication bias existed (P<0.01; Figure 3B). This result indicated that the prognostic value of tissue miR21 was not stable in CRC patients. There were other miRNAs with significant prognostic value in CRC, including blood miR141 and tissue miR21, miR181a, miR224, and miR126 (P<0.05). Among these, blood miR141 and tissue miR224 were powerful prognostic candidates in CRC (HR ≥2).

Discussion

Present situation

Increasing numbers of studies have indicated that diverse miRNAs are connected with survival results in CRC patients.1–258 Nevertheless, no systematic review or meta-analysis has evaluated HRs between miRNA levels and survival outcomes of CRC patients. Therefore, it was of vital significance to launch a meta-analysis to comprehend the relationship between expression levels of miRNAs and prognoses of CRC patients.

Molecular mechanisms for miRNAs researched

An overview of miRNAs with dysregulated expression and their potential targets and pathways of entry is detailed in Figure 9. There was noticeable functional overlap and relationships among the miRNAs. Seven miRNAs (miR21, miR106a, miR126, miR143, miR181a, miR224, and miR429) touched upon cell functions, including cell apoptosis, cell cycle, and death. To sum up, these associations may refer to CRC progression.
Figure 9

Summary of microRNAs with altered expression and potential targets and pathways entered in this study.

Abbreviations: ATG7, autophagy related 7; E2F1, E2F transcription factor 1; TGFBR2, transforming growth factor beta receptor 2; CDKN1A, cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor 1A; TP53, tumor protein p53; BCL2, apoptosis regulator; CXCR4, C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4; TLR2, toll like receptor 2; PTEN, phosphatase and tensin homolog; WIF1, WNT inhibitory factor 1; CDH1, cadherin 1; PHLPP1, PH domain and leucine rich repeat protein phosphatase 1; PHLPP2, PH domain and leucine rich repeat protein phosphatase 2; MBD2, methyl-CpG binding domain protein 2; SMAD4, SMAD family member 4; SOX2, SRY-box 2; HOXA5, homeobox A5; AKT1, AKT serine/threonine kinase 1; FOXO3, forkhead box O3; RHOA, ras homolog family member A.

Other CRC molecular pathways

In addition to miRNAs, there are some other molecular data that can be confounders, related to mortalities, such as the chromosomal instability pathway, the DNA mismatch repair system, and microsatellite instability (MSI). Features of distinctive pathways are different models of genetic instability, succeeding clinical presentations, and features of pathological behavior. A majority of CRC follows the chromosomal instability pathway, features of which are extensive loss of heterozygosis and gross chromosomal abnormalities.266,267 Second, about 15% of CRC is due to the derangement of the DNA mismatch repair system and consequential MSI. The former is in charge of protein production, which identifies and directly repairs mononucleotide mismatches at MS sequences that escape the proofreading system of DNA polymerase. Furthermore, a previous meta-analysis indicated that MSI-high CRC patients had a 40% better OS rate compared with MS-stable CRC patients.268

Molecular pathological epidemiology (MPE)

MPE is a multidisciplinary research field of associations between endogenous and exogenous ingredients, molecular cancer biomarkers, and cancer progression and also a comprehensive interdisciplinary science on the strength of the characteristic principal and continuum theory of diseases.269,270 Other than miRNAs, DNA mutation and methylation and other diagnostics, such as blood tests, also play crucial roles in cancer prognosis and MPE, which deeply investigates environmental exposure, intermediate phenotypes, such as blood biomarkers, and molecular changes in cancer using molecular pathologic analyses. MPE helps precision medicine by providing robust evidence for exposure–outcome associations, such as with drugs.

Strengths

This study has some strengths. Almost all the articles with survival consequences in CRC patients with disparate miR-NAs were searched. Furthermore, the current expression profile of miRNAs is explicitly detailed in Tables 1 and 2 according to miRNAs and types of detected samples (blood or tissue). Papers assessing at least one of the survival curves of OS, CSS, DFS, RFS, PFS, and MFS were eventually included, and papers covering merely HRs or 95% CIs without any of the survival curves were excluded. Meta-analyses were performed on miRNAs investigated five or more times in CRC tissues. Virtually all the studies included had sample sizes ≥30 (except two),70,111 reinforcing the usability and enlarging the feasibility of consequences to CRC patients.
Table 2

Frequency of studies estimating prognostic value of tissue-miRNA expression in colorectal cancer

miRnReference(s)miRnReference(s)miRnReference(s)miRnReference(s)miRnReference(s)
let7a-5p13134a-5p199143659, 112, 1501532111197487b1233
let7a-213234a110014411542121198490-3p1234
let7a13392a364, 101, 102145533, 64, 150, 155, 1562141199491-5p1205
let7b13493234, 103148a*1157215458, 155, 179, 200494234, 235
let7c13596-5p1104148a381, 158, 1592172201, 2024981215
let7e1189611051492160, 1612182203, 2045033227, 236, 237
let7g*13699a-3p1361501162221-3p1205505*136
let7g13799a235, 1061531163221*1206505132
let7i12899b-5p11071541164221228, 2075062238, 239
7334, 39, 401002106, 1081551602231208515-5p1134
9141101164181a-11322245206, 209212517a1240
10b428, 4244103a158181a518, 165168229-5p136542-3p2241, 242
15a-5p145103-1181181b218, 1692961213556167
15a1461031109181 c1170320a1285701157
1634648106a-5p11101823171173320e12145731134
17-5p34951106a749, 64, 67, 111114183117432012155791134
17152106b358, 115, 11618511333261216590-5p2243, 244
18a253, 541071361872175, 1763281325922186, 245
19b138124-5 p19188-3p117733512176101246
20a-5p255, 561242117, 1181911178337-5p136625-3p1247
20a257, 58125b533, 35, 106, 112, 1191922179, 180338-3p12186251248
21175, 58731266120125193a-5p118134012196301249
22274, 751282126, 127193b1182342-3p12056381250
23b276, 77130a181194338, 183, 184361-5p1220652132
24-3p278, 79130b1128195-5p133362-3p1157664-3p1186
251801322129, 130195233, 34365-11767201251
26a-2181133a2131, 132196a1185365-21768021134
26b182133b2133, 134196b-5p11863651221875-5p1252
29a283, 841341135196b1185370136885-5p128
29b185135b31361381971323721222889136
30a-5p1861372139, 1401981187376a12239441157
30a187138-5p2141, 142199a-3p1188378a-3p12241260b1253
30b1881381143199b1189378a-5p122412881254
30d189139-3p1144200a382, 149, 19037812251290129
31-3p290, 91139-5p218, 145200c323, 149, 191422a2141, 22612921227
31-5p391931391146203224, 192424-3p122712971255
31464, 9496140-5p2147, 148204-5p2193, 1944295149, 22823118261256
32232, 97141234, 1492061195450b-5p123245001257
33b198143-5p1582101196455-5p118647751258

Note: Highlighted studies were included in the present meta-analysis.

Limitations

Nevertheless, we cannot overemphasize the following limitations. There was much heterogeneity in designs of studies, and most of the outcomes from our meta-analyses contained high heterogeneity (I2≥50%). Statistical assessment of publication bias was suboptimal. There existed differences among the studies, including tissue-detected (frozen or formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded), blood (plasma or serum), tumor stage (I–IV), cutoff values, and miRNA methods. The present meta-analysis simply included papers published in English, perhaps excluding potential studies published in other languages with respect to miRNA level and prognosis of CRC patients. Papers covering only HRs or 95% CIs without survival curves were excluded, lowering the sample sizes of the papers included. Because of the massive interrelation between papers and data about CRC, we subjectively and selectively included specific studies on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, bringing about the omission of several possible miRNAs with prognostic value and a relatively small number of included studies. The studies included contained three types of cancers (colon and rectal cancer and CRC), which blurred the division between tumor types. Some blood miRNAs were from cell-free RNA, while others were from exosome isolates. These were considered the same to some degree and may have caused some deviations in the final results.

Implications for prospective clinical and scientific study

It should be mentioned that the current meta-analysis is the first system assessment of the pertinence of miRNA level to the prognosis of CRC patients. This study presents foundations for prospective clinical and scientific study with respect to clinical staff and other health care providers, for whom simultaneous determination of miRNA expression is able greatly to reinforce assessment of life expectancy of CRC patients, thus enabling prompt therapy, and for scientific researchers. Current research progress and trends in connections between miRNAs and prognosis of CRC patients are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Selectively basic experiments can be conducted using these details (Figure 9). Conflicting results on the prognosis of miRNAs may be addressed based on the present meta-analysis.

Conclusion

In general, blood miR141 and tissue miR21, miR181a, miR224, and miR126 have significant prognostic value. Among these, blood miR141 and tissue miR224 are strong biomarkers of prognosis in CRC.
  262 in total

1.  Elevated oncofoetal miR-17-5p expression regulates colorectal cancer progression by repressing its target gene P130.

Authors:  Yanlei Ma; Peng Zhang; Feng Wang; Huizhen Zhang; Yongzhi Yang; Chenzhang Shi; Yang Xia; Jiayuan Peng; Weijie Liu; Zhe Yang; Huanlong Qin
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 14.919

2.  Significance of miR-148a in Colorectal Neoplasia: Downregulation of miR-148a Contributes to the Carcinogenesis and Cell Invasion of Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Yumi Hibino; Naoya Sakamoto; Yutaka Naito; Keisuke Goto; Htoo Zarni Oo; Kazuhiro Sentani; Takao Hinoi; Hideki Ohdan; Naohide Oue; Wataru Yasui
Journal:  Pathobiology       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  The prognostic significance of APC gene mutation and miR-21 expression in advanced-stage colorectal cancer.

Authors:  T-H Chen; S-W Chang; C-C Huang; K-L Wang; K-T Yeh; C-N Liu; H Lee; C-C Lin; Y-W Cheng
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.788

4.  miR-206 is an independent prognostic factor and inhibits tumor invasion and migration in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Pengda Sun; Dong Sun; Xudong Wang; Tianzhou Liu; Zhiming Ma; Liwei Duan
Journal:  Cancer Biomark       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 4.388

5.  Circulating microRNA-203 predicts prognosis and metastasis in human colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Keun Hur; Yuji Toiyama; Yoshinaga Okugawa; Shozo Ide; Hiroki Imaoka; C Richard Boland; Ajay Goel
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  MiR-429 is an independent prognostic factor in colorectal cancer and exerts its anti-apoptotic function by targeting SOX2.

Authors:  Juan Li; Lutao Du; Yongmei Yang; Chuanxin Wang; Hui Liu; Lili Wang; Xin Zhang; Wei Li; Guixi Zheng; Zhaogang Dong
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2012-10-27       Impact factor: 8.679

7.  Long Non-Coding RNA lincRNA-ROR Promotes the Progression of Colon Cancer and Holds Prognostic Value by Associating with miR-145.

Authors:  Peng Zhou; Lixia Sun; Danfeng Liu; Changkuo Liu; Lei Sun
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 3.201

8.  Stratifying risk of recurrence in stage II colorectal cancer using deregulated stromal and epithelial microRNAs.

Authors:  Marc D Bullock; Karen Pickard; Richard Mitter; A Emre Sayan; John N Primrose; Cristina Ivan; George A Calin; Gareth J Thomas; Graham K Packham; Alex H Mirnezami
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2015-03-30

9.  Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jayne F Tierney; Lesley A Stewart; Davina Ghersi; Sarah Burdett; Matthew R Sydes
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Prognostic Value of MicroRNAs in Preoperative Treated Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Azadeh Azizian; Ingo Epping; Frank Kramer; Peter Jo; Markus Bernhardt; Julia Kitz; Gabriela Salinas; Hendrik A Wolff; Marian Grade; Tim Beißbarth; B Michael Ghadimi; Jochen Gaedcke
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 5.923

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Prognostic Value of MicroRNAs in Stage II Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Shanthi Sabarimurugan; Madurantakam Royam Madhav; Chellan Kumarasamy; Ajay Gupta; Siddharta Baxi; Sunil Krishnan; Rama Jayaraj
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.074

2.  Prognosticators of Long-Term Outcomes of TNM Stage II Colorectal Cancer: Molecular Patterns or Clinicopathological Features.

Authors:  Tai-Chuan Kuan; Shih-Ching Chang; Jen-Kou Lin; Tzu-Chen Lin; Shung-Haur Yang; Jeng-Kae Jiang; Wei-Shone Chen; Huann-Sheng Wang; Yuan-Tzu Lan; Chun-Chi Lin; Hung-Hsin Lin; Sheng-Chieh Huang
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Letter to the editor "Prognostic value of microRNAs in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis".

Authors:  Rama Jayaraj; Chellan Kumarasamy; K M Gothandam
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 3.989

4.  MicroRNA-140-3p enhances the sensitivity of hepatocellular carcinoma cells to sorafenib by targeting pregnenolone X receptor.

Authors:  Jiaqi Li; Jing Zhao; Huan Wang; Xiaohan Li; Aixia Liu; Qin Qin; Boan Li
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Inflammatory Markers and MicroRNAs: The Backstage Actors Influencing Prognosis in Colorectal Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Rihab Nasr; Miza Salim Hammoud; Farah Nassar; Deborah Mukherji; Ali Shamseddine; Sally Temraz
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 5.923

6.  Treatment with somatostatin analogs induces differentially expressed let-7c-5p and mir-3137 in small intestine neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Florian Bösch; Alexandr V Bazhin; Sabine Heublein; Katharina Brüwer; Thomas Knösel; Florian P Reiter; Christoph J Auernhammer; Markus O Guba; Christine Spitzweg; Jens Werner; Martin K Angele
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Validation of miRNA prognostic significance in stage II colorectal cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of observational clinical studies.

Authors:  Shanthi Sabarimurugan; Chellan Kumarasamy; Madhav Madurantakam Royam; Karthik Lakhotiya; Gothandam Kodiveri Muthukaliannan; Suja Ramalingam; Rama Jayaraj
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  Prognostic Significance of CDH1, FN1 and VIM for Early Recurrence in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastasis After Liver Resection.

Authors:  Aleksandar Bogdanovic; Jovana Despotovic; Danijel Galun; Nemanja Bidzic; Aleksandra Nikolic; Jovana Rosic; Zoran Krivokapic
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 9.  Insulin-Like Growth Factor 2 (IGF2) Signaling in Colorectal Cancer-From Basic Research to Potential Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Aldona Kasprzak; Agnieszka Adamek
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 5.923

10.  Potential of miR-21 to Predict Incomplete Response to Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Susana Ourô; Cláudia Mourato; Sónia Velho; André Cardador; Marisa P Ferreira; Diogo Albergaria; Rui E Castro; Rui Maio; Cecília M P Rodrigues
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.