| Literature DB >> 32434417 |
Yu Hu1, Yongrui Zhang2, Jialin Gao2, Xin Lian2, Yuantao Wang2.
Abstract
CD44 is reported to be involved in tumor invasion and metastasis. However, the role of cancer stem cell marker CD44 in bladder cancer still remains controversial. Hence, the correlations between CD44 expression and the clinicopathological features and the prognosis of bladder cancer were investigated. Publications using immunohistochemical methods were identified. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data were also analyzed. The odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. 14 studies involving 1107 tissue samples were included. CD44 expression in bladder cancer was lower than in non-tumor tissue samples (OR = 0.14, P = 0.005), which was consistent with TCGA data. CD44 expression was correlated with advanced T stage (OR = 1.76, P = 0.029) and lymph node metastasis (OR = 4.09, P < 0.001). Multivariate survival analysis showed that CD44 expression was not linked to tumor-specific survival, overall survival, and recurrence/relapse-free survival, but was associated with disease failure (HR = 2.912, 95% CI = 1.51-5.61). No relationships of CD44 expression with the clinicopathological features and overall survival were found from TCGA data. Our finding suggested that CD44 expression may be correlated with progression, metastasis, and disease failure of bladder cancer. However, further large-scale studies are needed.Abbreviations: CD44: Cluster of Differentiation 44; CIs: Confidence Intervals; CSCs: Cancer Stem Cells; EMT: Epithelial-mesenchymal Transition; HRs: Hazard Ratios; ORs: Odds Ratios; TCGA: The Cancer Genome Atlas.Entities:
Keywords: CD44; Survival; bladder cancer; expression; lymph node metastasis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32434417 PMCID: PMC7250188 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2020.1765500
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
Figure 1.Flow diagram of the study selection.
The basic characteristics of the eligible studies.
| First author | Country | Age | Stage | Antibodies | Positivity (IHC) | Control Sample | Cancer | Control | Grade 3–4 | Grade 1–2 | pT2-4 | pTa-1 | Lymph node metastasis (yes) | Lymph node metastasis (no) | Clinical outcome-MA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (E+ %) | N (E+ %) | E+/N | E+/N | E+/N | E+/N | E+/N | E+/N | ||||||||
| Sugino 1996 26 | UK | NA | pTa-pT4 | Hermes 3 | NA | 37 (73%) | 12/22 | 15/15 | 9/19 | 18/18 | No | ||||
| Woodman 1996 42 | UK | NA | NA | Hermes 3 | NA | Normal | 19 (100%) | 5 (100%) | No | ||||||
| Müller 1997 41 | Germany | NA | pTa-pT4 | F10-44-2, Boehringer Mannheim, Germany, No. 1441272 | >30% | 35 (100%) | 14/14 | 21/21 | 8/8 | 27/27 | No | ||||
| Lipponen 1998 27 | Finland | 67 | pTa-pT4 | clone 2C5, R&D Systems, Abingdon, U.K. | Moderate-strong | 170 (28.2%) | 15/33 | 32/137 | 13/36 | 35/134 | 10/21 | 38/149 | Yes | ||
| Kong 2003 40 | China | NA | pTa-pT4 | Ab-2,Oncogene Science, Uniondale, NY | NA | Non-cancerous | 56 (28.6%) | 28 (67.8%) | 5/29 | 11/25 | No | ||||
| Gadalla 2004 28 | Egypt | NA | pTa-pT4 | Mob104, B734, Clone A020, Isotype IgG2b, Diagnostic BioSystems, New Delhi, India | Weak-strong | Normal | 55 (67.3%) | 8 (87.5%) | 11/22 | 16/22 | 23/40 | 14/15 | No | ||
| Kuncová 2007 25 | Czech Republic | NA | pTa-pT4 | DAKO Glostrup, Denmark | Moderate-strong | 122 (86.9%) | 25/34 | 81/88 | No | ||||||
| Omran 2012 39 | Egypt | NA | pT1-pT3 | Dako, Denmark | Weak-strong | Normal | 50 (80%) | 11 (90.9%) | 3/6 | 12/14 | 31/37 | 9/13 | No | ||
| Oliva 2013 38 | USA | NA | CIS | Pharmingen, San Diego, CA | Scores 2–3 | Non-cancerous | 17 (5.9%) | 17 (88.2%) | No | ||||||
| Hofner 2014 37 | Germany | 65 | pT1-pT4 | NA | >75% | 107 (NA) | Yes | ||||||||
| Afonso 2015 36 | Portugal | 70 | pTa-pT4 | AbD Serotec, MCA2726 | Scores ≥4 | 114 (50%) | 38/68 | 19/46 | No | ||||||
| Koukourakis 2016 35 | Greece | NA | pT2-pT3 | Ab6124, Abcam, Cambridge, UK | >5% | 66 (42.4%) | Yes | ||||||||
| Wu 2017 34 | China | NA | pT2-pT4 | Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers | IRS ≥2 | 85 (52.9%) | 15/18 | 30/67 | No | ||||||
| Wu 2018 33 | China | NA | pT2-pT4 | NA | IRS ≥2 | 105 (52.4%) | 21/26 | 34/79 | Yes |
N: number of the study population; E+: positive expression; MA: multivariate analysis; NA: not applicable; IRS: immunoreactive score; IHC: immunohistochemistry.
Figure 2.Forest plot of the association of CD44 expression between bladder cancer and non-tumor tissue samples.
Figure 3.Forest plot of the association of CD44 expression with the clinicopathological characteristics.
Figure 4.Forest plot of the prognostic role of CD44 expression using multivariate survival analysis.
Figure 5.Association between CD44 expression and bladder cancer, (a) expression level of CD44 between bladder cancer and normal tissue samples; (b) Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of CD44 expression in bladder cancer.
Association of CD44 expression with the clinicopathological characteristics from TCGA data.
| Factors | Total (N) | OR with 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (≥69 vs. <69 years) | 406 | 0.94 (0.64–1.39) | 0.766 |
| Gender (Male vs. female) | 406 | 1.08 (0.69–1.68) | 0.735 |
| Grade (High vs. low) | 403 | 1.01 (0.41–2.47) | 0.991 |
| T stage (T3-4 vs. T1-2) | 373 | 1.01 (0.65–1.55) | 0.978 |
| Lymph node metastasis (Positive vs. negative) | 364 | 0.86 (0.56–1.32) | 0.495 |
| Metastasis (Positive vs. negative) | 206 | 0.65 (0.19–2.3) | 0.508 |
N: number of the study population; OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; TCGA: The Cancer Genome Atlas.