| Literature DB >> 30581497 |
Ze-Long Liu1, Xi-Wen Bi1, Pan-Pan Liu1, De-Xin Lei1, Wen-Qi Jiang1, Yi Xia1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Circulating Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA concentrations were reported to have prognostic value for NK/T-cell lymphoma patients in limited small-scale studies. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of circulating EBV-DNA concentrations to a large sample of NK/T-cell lymphoma patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30581497 PMCID: PMC6276475 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1961058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
Quality assessment by Newcastle–Ottawa scale.
| Study | Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the nonexposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Outcome of interest was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis | Assessment of outcome | Follow-up was long enough | Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | Total quality score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lei et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Kim et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Suzuki et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Wang et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Y Ito 2012 (1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Y Ito 2012 (2) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Kwong et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Liu et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Kim et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Wang et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Lim et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Liang et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Yang et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Zhang et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Liang et al. [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
Figure 1The flow chart of selection of the included studies.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| Study | Design | Inclusion period |
| Median or mean age | Ann Arbor stage | Sample | Cut-off value | Treatment strategy | Extractable survival outcomes | Median follow-up (months) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-DNA | Post-DNA | ||||||||||
| Lei et al. [ | R | 1995–2001 | 26 | 61ya | I–IV | Plasma | 600 | — | CT/RT/CT → RT | OS | 13 (4.5–24.3) |
| Kim et al. [ | R | 2004–2007 | 47 | 48.5ya | I–IV | Whole blood | Median | — | NR | OS | NR |
| Suzuki et al. [ | P | 2004–2007 | 32 | 55ya | I–IV | Plasma | 1000 | — | CT/RT/CCRT/RT → CT | OS | NR |
| Wang et al. [ | P | 2007–2009 | 69 | 39ya | I–II | Plasma | 500 | 0 | RT/RT → CT | OS, PFS | 32 |
| Y Ito 2012 (1) | P | NR | 26 | 46.5ya | NR | Plasma | 10E5 | — | CT | OS, CR, and ORR | NR |
| Y Ito 2012 (2) | P | NR | 26 | 46.5ya | NR | Whole blood | 1000 | — | CT | OS, CR, and ORR | NR |
| Kwong et al. [ | P | 2005–2012 | 54 | 52.5ya | I–IV | Plasma | — | 0 | CT | OS | NR |
| Liu et al. [ | R | 2011–2014 | 109 | 40ya | I–IV | Plasma | 500 | — | NR | PFS, ORR | NR |
| Kim et al. [ | R | 2005–2013 | 102 | 48ya | I–IV | Whole blood | — | 0 | CT/CCRT/CT → RT | OS, PFS | 47.2 (30–65.5) |
| Wang et al. [ | P | 2008–2014 | 68 | 47ya | I–II | Plasma | 0 | 0 | CT → RT | OS, PFS, and CR | 32 (2–76) |
| Lim et al. [ | R | 2009–2014 | 27 | 44ya | I–IV | Whole blood | — | 0 | CCRT | OS, PFS | 36.9 (1.6–75.4) |
| Liang et al. [ | R | 2007–2012 | 13 | 43.5ya | I–IV | Plasma | Median | — | CT/RT/CCRT/CT → RT/RT → CT | OS | NR |
| Yang et al. [ | R | 2006–2016 | 81 | 41ya | I–IV | Plasma | 500 | — | CT/CT → RT/RT → CT | OS,PFS | 21 (1–123) |
| Zhang et al. [ | P | 2010–2014 | 85 | 38.66yb | I–IV | Plasma | 0 | — | CT → RT | OS, PFS, CR, and ORR | NR |
| Liang et al. [ | P | 2010–2015 | 32 | 48ya | III–IV | Whole blood | 5000 | — | CT | OS, PFS, and ORR | NR |
R: retrospective study; P: prospective study; NR: not reported; N: number of participants; pre-DNA: pretreatment EBV-DNA; post-DNA: posttreatment EBV-DNA; CT: chemotherapy; RT: radiotherapy; CCRT: concurrent chemoradiotherapy; OS: overall survival; PFS: progression-free survival; CR: complete response; ORR: overall response rate. aMedian age. bMean age.
Summary of meta-analysis results.
| Outcomes | No. of studies | HR/RR 95% CI |
|
| Study heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi2 ( | df |
|
| |||||
|
| ||||||||
| OS | 11 | 3.45a | 3.23 |
| 42.20 | 10 | 76 |
|
| PFS | 5 | 2.37a | 3.94 |
| 2.45 | 4 | 0 | 0.65 |
| CR | 3 | 1.45b | 3.77 |
| 0.37 | 2 | 0 | 0.83 |
| ORR | 5 | 1.57b | 4.13 |
| 6.79 | 4 | 41 | 0.15 |
|
| ||||||||
| OS | 5 | 2.30a | 2.60 |
| 0.97 | 4 | 0 | 0.91 |
| PFS | 4 | 2.35a | 3.14 |
| 2.14 | 3 | 0 | 0.54 |
No.: number; HR: hazard ratio; RR: relative risk; CI: confidence interval; pre-DNA: pretreatment EBV-DNA; post-DNA: posttreatment EBV-DNA; OS: overall survival; PFS: progression-free survival; CR: complete response; ORR: overall response rate. aHazard ratios. bRisk ratios. cStatistically significant results are shown in bold.
Figure 2Forest plot of the analysis for pre-DNA-associated OS.
Figure 3Forest plot of the analysis for post-DNA-associated OS.