| Literature DB >> 31143091 |
Xiaobin Gu1, Meilian Dong1, Zheyan Liu1, Yin Mi1, Jing Yang1, Zhigang Zhang1, Ke Liu1, Li Jiang1, Yue Zhang1, Shiliang Dong1, Yonggang Shi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression has been shown to associate with poor prognosis in a variety of solid tumors. However, the prognostic value of PD-L1 expression in cervical cancer is still controversial. Therefore, we carried a meta-analysis to investigate the prognostic and clinicopathological impact of PD-L1 in cervical cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; Meta-analysis; PD-L1; Prognosis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31143091 PMCID: PMC6533692 DOI: 10.1186/s12935-019-0861-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Cell Int ISSN: 1475-2867 Impact factor: 5.722
Fig. 1Flow chart for selection of studies
Basic characteristics of included studies
| Author | Year | Country | No. of patients | Age (year) | Treatment | FIGO stage | Detection method | Study period | Survival analysis | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karim | 2009 | USA | 115 | 46.5 (24–87) | Surgery | I–II | IHC | 1985–1999 | OS | 7 |
| Duan | 2017 | China | 64 | 47.5 (30–65) | Surgery | I–IIA | IHC | 2013–2015 | OS | 6 |
| Enwere | 2017 | Canada | 120 | 44 (39–49) | CCRT | IB–IVA | IHC | 1999–2008 | OS, PFS | 7 |
| Kim | 2017 | Korea | 27 | 46 (34–71) | Surgery | IB1–IIA | IHC | 2011–2012 | OS, PFS | 8 |
| Feng | 2018 | China | 219 | 49 (26–75) | Mixed | I–IV | IHC | 2013–2016 | OS | 7 |
| Kawachi | 2018 | Japan | 148 | 45 (30–72) | Surgery | I–II | IHC | 2001–2014 | OS | 7 |
| Wang | 2018 | China | 90 | 46 (23–71) | Surgery | IB1–IIA2 | IHC | 2009–2012 | OS, PFS | 7 |
CCRT, concurrent chemo-radiotherapy; IHC, immunohistochemistry; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa scale
Fig. 2Forest plot showing pooled hazard ratio for OS and PD-L1 expression in cervical cancer
Fig. 3Forest plot showing pooled hazard ratio for PFS and PD-L1 expression in cervical cancer
Subgroup analysis of PD-L1 and OS, PFS in cervical cancer
| Factors | No. of studies | Effects model | HR (95% CI) | p | Heterogeneity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS | ||||||
| Total | 7 | Random | 2.52 (1.09–5.83) | 0.031 | 73 | 0.001 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Asian | 5 | Fixed | 4.77 (3.02–7.54) | < 0.001 | 18 | 0.3 |
| Caucasian | 2 | Fixed | 1.13 (0.68–1.88) | 0.634 | 0 | 0.562 |
| Sample size | ||||||
| < 100 | 3 | Fixed | 5.01 (1.93–13.03) | 0.001 | 0 | 0.471 |
| ≥ 100 | 4 | Random | 1.75 (0.55–5.59) | 0.344 | 83.7 | < 0.001 |
| Treatment | ||||||
| Surgery | 5 | Fixed | 3.04 (1.42–6.48) | 0.004 | 36.6 | 0.177 |
| Non-surgery | 2 | Random | 2.29 (0.51–10.34) | 0.28 | 93.6 | < 0.001 |
| PFS | ||||||
| Total | 3 | Random | 2.07 (0.52–8.23) | 0.302 | 77.3 | 0.012 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Asian | 2 | Fixed | 4.78 (1.77–12.91) | 0.002 | 28.7 | 0.236 |
| Caucasian | 1 | NA | 1.02 (0.62–1.69) | 0.939 | NA | NA |
OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; NA, not available
Associations between PD-L1 and clinical factors in cervical cancer
| Clinical factors | No. of studies | Effects model | OR (95% CI) | p | Heterogeneity | Begg’s p | Egger’s p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lymph node metastasis (yes vs no) | 7 | Random | 1.15 (0.59–2.25) | 0.682 | 63.6 | 0.011 | 0.368 | 0.543 |
| Tumor size (mm) (≥ 40 vs < 40) | 6 | Random | 1.48 (0.71–3.08) | 0.294 | 67.5 | 0.009 | 0.707 | 0.93 |
| FIGO stage (II vs I) | 6 | Fixed | 1.18 (0.83–1.68) | 0.345 | 39.9 | 0.139 | 0.707 | 0.85 |
| Depth of invasion (mm) (≥ 10 vs < 10) | 5 | Random | 0.85 (0.4–1.82) | 0.674 | 60.6 | 0.038 | 0.221 | 0.062 |
| Lymph-vascular invasion (yes vs no) | 5 | Fixed | 0.84 (0.57–1.22) | 0.357 | 11.4 | 0.341 | 1 | 0.758 |
| Age (y) (≥ 45 vs < 45) | 3 | Fixed | 1.14 (0.74–1.77) | 0.554 | 22.7 | 0.274 | 0.296 | 0.24 |
FIGO, The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Fig. 4Meta-analysis of the association between PD-L1 and clinicopathological factors in cervical cancer: a lymph node metastasis (yes vs no), b tumor size (mm) (≥ 40 vs < 40), c FIGO stage (II vs I), d depth of invasion (mm) (≥ 10 vs < 10), e lymph-vascular invasion (yes vs no), f age (y) (≥ 45 vs < 45)
Fig. 5Publication bias. a Begg’s test for OS (p = 0.548), b Egger’s test for OS (p = 0.798), c Begg’s test for PFS (p = 1), d Egger’s test for PFS (p = 0.638)