| Literature DB >> 33240816 |
Shushu Qian1, Hong Zhang1, Huibo Dai1, Bangyun Ma1, Fang Tian2, PengJun Jiang1, Haoran Gao1, Xiaocao Sha1, Xuemei Sun1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor associated macrophages (TAMs), a kind of inflammatory cells in the tumor microenvironment, are crucial for the occurrence and development of various tumors which increased the expression of CD163. Nevertheless, not much has been established regarding soluble CD163 and its connection to tumor diagnosis. In this case, a meta-analysis was conducted to determine the tumor diagnostic importance of serum sCD163.Entities:
Keywords: meta-analysis; prognostic value; soluble CD163; tumor associated macrophages; tumor microenvironment
Year: 2020 PMID: 33240816 PMCID: PMC7683770 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.585297
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.
Main characteristics of all the studies included in the meta-analysis.
| No. | Authors | Year | Study region | Study design | Inclusion period | Disease | No. (M/F) | Age (years) | Cut-off(µg/ml) | Medium and range(µg/ml) | Follow-up(months) | Outcome | HR | NOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Morten NA ( | 2014 | Denmark | Retrospective | 1991–2004 | Multiple myeloma | 104 (56/48) | 69 | 1.8 | 2.09 (1.52–2.84) | 36 (1–159) | OS | R (U/M) | 8 |
| 2 | DONG BD ( | 2017 | China | Prospective | 2012–2013 | Gastric cancer | 143 (98/45) | 64 (35–89) | 0.6645 | 0.628 (0.291~1.76) | 40 | OS | R (U/M) | 9 |
| 3 | Trine OJ ( | 2009 | Denmark | Prospective | 1997–2000 | Melanoma | 227 (113/114) | 55 (25–86) | NR | NR | 60 | OS | R (U/M) | 9 |
| 4 | Konstantin K ( | 2015 | Australia | Prospective | 2008–2010 | hepatocellular carcinoma | 109 (96/13) | 63 (55–71) | 8 | 5.6 (3.5–8.0) | 8.1 | OS/PFS | N (U) | 8 |
| 5 | Jae HN ( | 2013 | Korea | Prospective | 2005–2009 | Epithelial ovarian cancer | 55 | 53.5 (41–66) | 3.43 | 1.71 (1.05–2.86) | NR | OS | R (M) | 8 |
| 6 | Oliver W ( | 2013 | Germany | Prospective | 2009–2011 | Hepatocellular carcinoma | 267 (220/47) | 64.4 | 3.9 | NR | 282 | OS | R (U/M) | 9 |
| 7 | Kanakry JA ( | 2016 | North America | Prospective | 1994–2006 | Classical Hodgkin lymphoma | 301 | NR | NR | NR | NR | OS | R (U) | 5 |
| 8 | Nederby L ( | 2014 | Denmark | Prospective | 2014 | B-cell lymphocytic leukemia | 30 | NR | 2.45 | 2.085 (0.77–9.01) | 24 | PFS | R (U) | 7 |
OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival; HR, hazard ratio, obtained by reporting in text (R). “M” means the HR come from multivariate analysis, “U” means the HR comes from univariate analysis; NR, not reported; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.
Figure 2Meta-analysis of the association between sCD163 and overall survival (OS)/progression-free survival (PFS) of cancer. Results are presented as individual and pooled HR, and 95% CI.
Summary of the meta-analysis results.
| Analysis | N | References | Random-effects model | Fixed-effects model | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P | HR (95% CI) | P |
|
| |||
| OS | 7 | ( | 2.24 (1.50, 3.35) | 0 | 1.70 (1.43, 2.03) | 0 | 63.3% | 0.012 |
| Subgroup 1: sample size ≥ 200 | 2 | ( | 1.92 (0.95, 3.88) | 0.07 | 2.30 (1.62, 3.26) | 0 | 82.1% | 0.018 |
| Sample size ≥ 200 | 5 | ( | 2.56 (1.51, 4.32) | 0 | 1.54 (1.26, 1.89) | 0 | 42.5% | 0.138 |
| Subgroup 2: univariate analysis | 3 | ( | 3.11 (2.01, 4.80) | 0 | 3.11 (2.01, 4.80) | 0 | 0.0% | 0.692 |
| Multivariate analysis | 4 | ( | 1.83 (1.19, 2.82) | 0.006 | 1.52 (1.25, 1.84) | 0 | 56.2% | 0.077 |
| Subgroup 3: solid tumor | 5 | ( | 2.43 (1.31, 4.68) | 0.005 | 1.63 (1.33, 1.99) | 0 | 67.9% | 0.014 |
| Hematological tumor | 2 | ( | 2.05 (1.08, 3.90) | 0.028 | 2.00 (1.38, 2.90) | 0 | 66.2% | 0.085 |
| Subgroup 4: medium age at diagnosis ≥ 60 | 4 | ( | 2.61 (1.36, 5.01) | 0.004 | 2.28 (1.58, 3.29) | 0 | 56.7% | 0.074 |
| Medium age at diagnosis ≥60 | 2 | ( | 1.43 (1.15, 1.77) | 0.001 | 1.43 (1.15, 1.77) | 0.001 | 0.0% | 0.332 |
| PFS | 2 | ( | 3.90 (2.33, 6.52) | 0 | 3.90 (2.33, 6.52) | 0 | 0.0% | 0.601 |
N, number of studies; HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; Ph, P values of Q test; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression free survival.
Figure 4Sensitivity analysis for studies about overall survival (OS) by omitting each study sequential.
Figure 3Begg’s test for publication bias of results of survival.