| Literature DB >> 30687735 |
Weihao Kong1, Xiaomin Zuo2, Hao Liang3, Jingxiong Hu3, Huabing Zhang4, Xingyu Wang1, Wei Chen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown the prognostic value of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the results are not persuasive. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to quantitatively explore the prognostic value of LDH in hepatocellular carcinoma.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30687735 PMCID: PMC6327280 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1723184
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flow chart of the study selection.
Main characteristics of the included studies.
| First author | Year | Region | Age, median (range) | Cancer type | Study design | Time of Recruitment | Follow-up (months) | Number of patients | Stage range | Cutoff value | Therapy | Outcome | statistical mode | NOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li | 2016 | China | 54(19-79) | HCC | Retrospective | 2010.1-2014.12 | 15(3-73) | 119 | BCLC(BC) | 221 | TACE/Chemotherapy | OS/PFS | M | 7 |
| Zhang | 2015 | China | NA | HCC | Retrospective | 2008.1-2012.6 | 41(1-86) | 683 | TNM(I-IV) | 188 | curative resection | OS/DFS | M | 7 |
| Kohles | 2012 | Germany | 66.7(mean) | HCC | Retrospective | 2006-2008 | Max:24 | 38 | NA | 201 | TACE | OS | M | 6 |
| Wu | 2016 | China | 48(17-81) | HCC | Retrospective | 2007.6-2013.3 | 42(2-99) | 469 | BCLC(0ABC) | 203.5 | curative resection | OS/RFS | M | 7 |
| Falopp | 2014 | Italy | NA | HCC | Retrospective | 2008-2012 | Max:50 | 78 | BCLC(BC) | 407 | sorafenib | OS/PFS | M | 7 |
| Jun | 2013 | Korea | 59.1(32-87) | HCC | Retrospective | 2005.1-2012.12 | 27.3(0-115) | 743 | TNM(I-IV) | 450 | surgical resection/PEIT/RFA/TACE/HAIC/ | OS | M | 6 |
| Wang | 2015 | China | 54±12.1 | HCC | Retrospective | 2007.5-2011.5 | 39.4(3-97.6) | 200 | BCLC(0ABC)/TNM(I-IV)/ | 206 | curative resection | RFS | M | 6 |
| Chen | 2010 | China | 53.15±11.63 | HCC | Retrospective | 2001.1-2007.12 | Max:2500 days | 37 | NA | 200 | surgery after admission | OS | M | 6 |
| Scartozzi | 2012 | Italy | NA | HCC | Retrospective | 2002-2010 | Max:30 | 114 | BCLC(ABC) | 450 | TACE | OS/PFS | U | 7 |
| suzuki | 2015 | Japan | 68(37-82) | HCC | Retrospective | 2000.2-2010.10 | Max:80 | 95 | NA | 230 | TAI | OS | M | 6 |
Notes: NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; NA: not available; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; TNM: Tumor Node Metastasis; Max: maximum; TACE: transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; RFA: radiofrequency ablation; PEIT: percutaneous ethanol injection therapy; HAIC: hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy; RT: radiation therapy; BSC: best supportive care; TAI: transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy; OS: overall survival; RFS: recurrence-free survival; DFS: disease free survival; PFS: progression-free survival; M: multivariate analysis; U: univariate analysis.
Figure 2Results of the combined hazard ratio for OS in HCC patients with elevated LDH levels. Notes: OS: overall survival; LDH: lactate dehydrogenase.
Subgroups analysis of combined HR for OS in HCC patients.
| Subgroups | NO. of studies | NO. of patients | Pooled HR | P-value | Heterogeneity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (95% CI) | I2 (%) | P-value | Model | ||||
| Sample size | |||||||
| <100 | 4 | 248 | 2.11 (1.29-3.46) |
| 57.2 | 0.071 | random |
| ≥100 | 5 | 2128 | 2.13 (1.61-2.81) |
| 51.4 | 0.084 | random |
| Region | |||||||
| Asian | 6 | 2146 | 1.93 (1.60-2.32) |
| 0 | 0.646 | random |
| Caucasian | 3 | 230 | 2.67 (1.11-6.44) |
| 85.9 | 0.001 | random |
| Cutoff value | |||||||
| ≤200 | 2 | 720 | 2.70 (0.97-7.50) | 0.057 | 62.8 | 0.101 | random |
| 200-400 | 4 | 721 | 2.00 (1.56-2.57) |
| 0 | 0.710 | random |
| ≥400 | 3 | 935 | 2.12 (1.14-3.94) |
| 84.2 | 0.002 | random |
| Tumor stage type | |||||||
| BCLC | 4 | 780 | 2.11 (1.40-3.17) |
| 77.8 | 0.004 | random |
| TNM | 2 | 1426 | 1.82 (1.39-2.38) |
| 0 | 0.754 | random |
| Others | 3 | 170 | 2.73 (1.53-4.89) |
| 20.6 | 0.284 | random |
| Therapy method | |||||||
| resection | 3 | 1189 | 1.95 (1.44-2.06) |
| 29.7 | 0.241 | random |
| TACE | 2 | 152 | 4.22 (2.53-7.04) |
| 0 | 0.817 | random |
| others | 4 | 1035 | 1.61 (1.35-1.93) |
| 0 | 0.392 | random |
Notes: HR: hazard ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence intervals; OS: overall survival; NO: number; BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; TNM: Tumor Node Metastasis; TACE: transcatheter arterial chemoembolization.
Figure 3Results of the combined hazard ratio for RFS/DFS in HCC patients with elevated LDH levels. Notes: RFS: recurrence-free survival; DFS: disease free survival; LDH: lactate dehydrogenase.
Figure 4Results of the combined hazard ratio for PFS in HCC patients with elevated LDH levels. Notes: PFS: progression-free survival; LDH: lactate dehydrogenase.
Figure 5Funnel plot to evaluate the publication bias for OS. Notes: OS: overall survival.
Figure 6Sensitivity analysis of combined HR for OS. Notes: HR: hazard ratio; OS: overall survival.
Meta-analysis of the correlation between LDH and clinicopathological features in HCC patients.
| Stratified analysis | No. of studies | No. of patients | Pooled OR | p-value | Heterogeneity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (95% CI) | I2 (%) | P-value | Model | ||||
| Age (old vs. young) | 3 | 875 | 1.19 (0.99-1.45) | 0.070 | 0 | 0.894 | Fixed |
|
| |||||||
| Gender | 5 | 1463 | 0.68 (0.49-0.95) |
| 67.2 | 0.016 | random |
| (male vs. female) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| ECOG score | 3 | 311 | 1.22 (0.88-1.69) | 0.232 | 33.8 | 0.221 | fixed |
| (1+ 2 vs. 0) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Tumor number | 3 | 1271 | 1.25 (0.99-1.58) | 0.063 | 51.1 | 0.129 | random |
| (multiple vs. single) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Child-Pugh Grade | 3 | 916 | 1.90 (1.47-2.45) |
| 0 | 0.951 | fixed |
| (B vs. A) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| AFP (high vs. low) | 2 | 547 | 1.52 (1.26-1.82) |
| 0 | 0.384 | fixed |
|
| |||||||
| Vascular invasion | 3 | 1271 | 1.59 (1.36-1.86) |
| 12.9 | 0.317 | fixed |
| (yes vs. no) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| TNM stage | 2 | 802 | 1.62 (1.28-2.05) |
| 0 | 0.875 | fixed |
| (III+IV vs. I+II) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Tumor diameter | 2 | 1152 | 2.03 (1.23-3.35) |
| 89.9 | 0.002 | random |
| (> 5vs. <5) | |||||||
Notes: LDH: lactate dehydrogenase; NO: number; OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence intervals; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; AFP: alpha-fetoprotein; TNM: Tumor Node Metastasis.