| Literature DB >> 30310499 |
Jung Han Kim1, Hyun Joo Jang1, Hyeong Su Kim1, Bum Jun Kim1,2, Sung Ho Park3.
Abstract
High c-Met expression has been observed in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). However, its clinicopathological impacts remain controversial. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the pathologic and prognostic significance of c-Met overexpression in patients with EOC. A systematic computerized search of the electronic databases PubMed, PMC, EMBASE, and Google scholar (up to April 2018) was carried out. From seven studies, 568 patients with EOC were included in the meta-analysis. Although there was no statistical significance, EOCs with c-Met overexpression tended to show higher FIGO stage (III-IV) (odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.86-5.53, p = 0.10) and higher rate of lymph node metastasis (odds ratio = 3.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.85-10.98, p = 0.09), compared with tumors with low c-Met expression. In terms of prognosis, patients with c-Met-high EOC showed significantly worse survival than those with c-Met-low tumor (hazard ratio = 2.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.51-2.94, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicates that high c-Met expression represents an adverse prognostic marker for patients with EOC.Entities:
Keywords: c-Met expression; meta-analysis; ovarian cancer; prognosis; review
Year: 2018 PMID: 30310499 PMCID: PMC6171012 DOI: 10.7150/jca.26071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1Flow diagram of search process.
Summary of the seven included studies
| First author (year) [ref] | Country | Histology | Methods, antibody, | No. of patients | Criteria for c-Met overexpression | High c-Met expression (%) | FIGO stage (III-IV) | LN metastasis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ayhan | Turkey | Serous (24) | IHC with whole slides, | 41 | ≥ 20% of cancer cells | 25 (60.9%) | NA | 24 (96%): 7 (43.8%) |
| Sawada | USA | Serous (114) | IHC with TMA, | 138 | No staining (0), weak (1), moderate (2), and strong (3) | 15 (10.9%) | NA | NA |
| Yamamoto | Japan | Clear cell | IHC with TMA, | 90 | Moderate (2+) or strong (3+) when complete cytoplasmic staining in ≥10% of cancer cells | 20 (22.2%) | 10 (50%): 21 (30%) | 2 (20%): 10 (20.8%) |
| Li | China | Serous (30) | IHC with whole slides | 47 | Not described | 36 (76.6%) | 32 (88.9%): 5 (45.5%) | 9 (25%): 9 (81.8%) |
| Wang | China | Clear cell | IHC with whole slides, | 86 | Intensity: no pigmentation (0), light yellow (1), buffy (2), brown (3) | 60 (69.8%) | 21 (35%): 5 (19.2%) | 51(87.9%): 23 (88.5%) |
| Battista | Germany | Serous (82) | IHC with whole slides, | 106 | No staining (0), definite cytoplasmic and/or equivocal membrane staining (1), unequivocal membrane staining with mild to moderate intensity (2), and strong and complete membranous staining (3) | 22 (20.8%) | 15 (68.2%): 63 (75%) | NA |
| Puvanenthiran (2018) | UK | Serous (51) | IHC, | 60 | > 5% of tumor cells | 13 (21.7%) | NA | NA |
IHC, immunohistochemistry; TMA, tissue microarray; Ab, antibody; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; UD, undifferentiated; NA, not available
Figure 2Forest plots of odds ratios for FIGO stage (A) and lymph node metastatsis (B).
Figure 3Forest plot of hazard ratios for overall survival.
Figure 4Funnel plots for publication bias regarding FIGO stage (A), lymph node metastasis (B), and overall survival (C).