| Literature DB >> 32257201 |
Li Dang1, Hongbo Ma1, Ailian Hei1, Shuai Xu1, Ji Zhou1, Ellen He1, Sven Skog1.
Abstract
The present study investigated whether a concentration of serum thymidine kinase 1 (STK1p) could be used to distinguish between healthy individuals, patients with colorectal benign tumors and individuals with colorectal cancer (CRC). The effectiveness of surgery on patients with CRC was monitored. A total of 20 publications containing patients with CRC (n=1,836), patients with colorectal benign tumors (n=774) and healthy controls (n=1,701) were analysed in the present meta-analysis. The publications were collected from PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and SinoMed databases from January 1, 2009 until August 31, 2019. Articles were analyzed according to sensitivity (Forest plot) and publication bias (Begg's plot, Egger's linear regression) using fixed or random effect models to calculate the weighted mean difference. Study quality was checked using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Document Quality Assessment Scale. The meta-analysis followed the PRISMA statement. The results revealed that STK1p significantly distinguished healthy individuals and those with colorectal benign tumors from patients with CRC, and from patients with benign tumors (P<0.000001). STK1p levels also decreased by 40% following surgery (P<0.0001), which corresponded to half-life of ~1 month. The quality of the present study was high and no bias was identified among publication. It was concluded that STK1p was a reliable biomarker for the early detection of benign lesions, which may therefore prevent their future development into colorectal malignancies. STK1p may also be used for the clinical dynamic monitoring of the effectiveness of surgery in patients with CRC. Combining STK1p with colorectal-associated biomarkers, in addition to the determination of tumor stage and grade may therefore be of use. Copyright: © Dang et al.Entities:
Keywords: colorectal cancer; meta-analysis; neoplastic colorectal polyp (colorectal benign tumor); serum thymidine kinase 1 concentration; thymidine kinase 1
Year: 2020 PMID: 32257201 PMCID: PMC7087469 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2020.2002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Clin Oncol ISSN: 2049-9450
Figure 1Flow diagram of the literature search and study selection process.
No of publications in the group of controls, benign and malignant persons, no of samples and STK1p mean values in the various groups included in the present study.
| Variables | Control | Benign | Malignant |
|---|---|---|---|
| Publications (n) | 19 | 10 | 20 |
| Samples (n) | 1,701 | 774 | 1,836 |
| STK1p (mean ± SD) | 0.88±0.50 | 1.30±0.84 | 3.14±2.55 |
| P-value | 0.00078[ | <0.0001[ | <0.0001[ |
P-values corresponding to the comparison of STK1p values between groups.
aControl vs. benigh group,
bbenigh vs. malignant group and
cmalignant vs. control group. SD, standard deviation; STK1p serum thymidine kinase 1.
Summary of the clinical data included in each selected publication.
| Clinical stage (n) | Pathological grading (n) | CRC type | Surgery | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author/(Ref), year | Location | Control (n) | Benign (n) | CRC (n) | M (n) | F (n) | Age | I | II | III | Low diff. | Medium/high diff. | Colon | Rectum | Before | After |
| An | Southwest | 33 | 45 | 45 | 31-76 | 45 | 24 | 21 | 13 | 13 | ||||||
| Huo | East China | 32 | 35 | 76 | 51 | 25 | 36-83 | 76 | 76 | |||||||
| Li ( | Southwest | 120 | 100 | 120 | 78 | 42 | 31-80 | 120 | 60 | 60 | 120 | 120 | ||||
| Li and Wang ( | East China | 48 | 45 | 108 | 79 | 29 | 31-78 | 108 | 108 | |||||||
| Liu | South China | 600 | 137 | 65 | 65 | 22-67 | 65 | 65 | ||||||||
| Lu | South China | 40 | 61 | 77 | 43 | 34 | 38-88 | 77 | 38 | 39 | ||||||
| Shen | East China | 60 | 50 | 43 | 28 | 15 | 30-79 | 43 | 21 | 22 | 43 | 43 | ||||
| Tian | East China | 33 | 66 | 45 | 21 | 25-72 | 66 | 66 | 66 | 66 | ||||||
| Xia | East China | 41 | 61 | 33 | 28 | 23-85 | 61 | 43 | 18 | 61 | 16 | 16 | ||||
| Qi | East China | 45 | 104 | 104 | 32-81 | 104 | 52 | 52 | ||||||||
| Zeng and Zhang ( | East China | 103 | 133 | 77 | 56 | 32-84 | 133 | 133 | ||||||||
| Zhang | Huazhong | 40 | 36 | 150 | 88 | 62 | 30-78 | 150 | 150 | 150 | 150 | |||||
| Zhang | East China | 161 | 64 | 64 | 35-84 | 64 | 35 | 29 | ||||||||
| Zhu | Huazhong | 52 | 162 | 82 | 49 | 33 | 36-68 | 17 | 65 | 34 | 48 | 82 | ||||
| Zhu | East China | 67 | 33 | 33 | 16-85 | 7 | 8 | 18 | 33 | 33 | 33 | |||||
| Fan | Northwest | 60 | 45 | 50 | 23 | 27 | 60-70 | 50 | 31 | 19 | 50 | |||||
| Jiang | East China | 70 | 71 | 50 | 21 | 32-82 | 9 | 26 | 36 | 18 | 53 | 22 | 49 | |||
| Weng ( | South China | 64 | 64 | 36 | 28 | 42-73 | 15 | 29 | 20 | 64 | ||||||
| Sun | Northeast | 60 | 80 | 50 | 30 | 24-80 | 80 | 54 | 26 | 80 | ||||||
| Ning | South China | 75 | 344 | 344 | 132 | 212 | 177 | 167 | ||||||||
| Total number | 1,701 | 774 | 1,836 | 1,385 | 451 | 180 | 63 | 1,593 | 180 | 164 | 1,110 | 726 | 441 | 441 | ||
| Age distribution | 16-85 | 35-84 | 23-85 | 30-85 | 30-85 | |||||||||||
CRC, colorectal cancer; M, male; F, female; diff., differentiation.
Literature quality evaluation by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Document Quality Assessment Scale (NOS).
| Author/(Ref), year | Is the definition adequate? | Representativeness of cases | Section selection of controls | Definition of controls | Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of design and analysis | Ascertainment of exposure | Exposure same method of ascertainment for cases and controls | Non-response rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| An | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Huo | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Li ( | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Li and Wang ( | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Liu | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Lu | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Shen | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Tian | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Xia | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Zeng and Zhang ( | * | * | ** | * | * | * | ||
| Zhang | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Zhang | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Zhu | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Zhu | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Qi | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Fan | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Jiang | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Weng ( | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Sun | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
| Ning | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * |
* and ** indicates that the eight quality test options were fullfiled in the studies. See more explanations at http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
Figure 2STK1p levels. (A) STK1p levels in healthy controls, benign patients and patients with malignant colorectal cancer patients. (B) STK1p levels in patients with malignant colorectal cancer before and after treatment. Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation and significant values were determined using a t-test. STK1p, serum thymidine kinase 1.
Figure 3Forest plots for correlation analysis. Forest plots were assessed between (A) healthy controls vs. malignant patients, (B) healthy controls vs. CRC benign patients, (C) benign patients vs. CRC malignant patients and (D) before vs. after surgery. Black diamonds indicate the mean value. CRC, colorectal cancer; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; IV, inverse variation.
Figure 4Study sensitivity analyses and the evaluation of mean differences. Evaluations were performed between (A) healthy control group and the colorectal malignancy group, (B) the benign disease and the colorectal malignancy group and (C) between the results obtained before and after surgery in the colorectal cancer group.
Egger's linear regression test for the assessment of publication bias.
| Standard effect | Coefficient | Standard error | T value | p>|t| | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control vs. benign | |||||
| Slope | -0.8601885 | 0.2631424 | -3.27 | 0.014 | -1.482421 to -0.2379556 |
| Bias | 4.134483 | 2.616981 | 1.58 | 0.158 | -2.053694 to 10.32266 |
| Control vs. malignant | |||||
| Slope | -2.533914 | 0.249529 | -10.15 | 0.000 | -3.060375 to -2.007454 |
| Bias | 1.303459 | 2.242794 | 0.58 | 0.569 | -3.428422 to 6.03534 |
| Benign vs. malignant | |||||
| Slope | -2.50849 | 0.6528756 | -3.84 | 0.005 | -4.014024 to -1.002956 |
| Bias | 5.555459 | 4.287575 | 1.30 | 0.231 | -4.331706 to 15.44262 |
| Before vs. after treatment | |||||
| Slope | 1.414582 | 0.2186961 | 6.47 | 0.001 | 0.8524054 to 1.976758 |
| Bias | -0.6030739 | 1.460007 | -0.34 | 0.744 | -4.256143 to 3.249995 |
CI, confidence interval.