| Literature DB >> 33912451 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several recent studies have investigated the prognostic and clinicopathological significance of epithelial cadherin (E-cadherin) in pancreatic cancer; however, conclusions from these studies remain inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of E-cadherin expression on the prognosis and clinicopathological characteristics of pancreatic cancer.Entities:
Keywords: E-cadherin; meta-analysis; pancreatic cancer; prognosis; susceptibility
Year: 2021 PMID: 33912451 PMCID: PMC8074677 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.627116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Characteristics of eligible studies in the meta-analysis for the OS of pancreatic cancer.
| Author | References | Time | Country | Ethnicity | Tumor stage | Cancer | Number | Follow-up time | Survival analysis | Source of HR | HRs | LL | UL | 95%CI |
| Cut-off value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shimamura et al. |
| 2003 | Japan | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 125 | 23.2 months | OS | HR | 1.82 | 1.17 | 2.83 | 1.17-2.83 | 0.008 | 20% |
| Shin et al. |
| 2005 | Korea | Asians | IHC | PC | 53 | 15.6 months | OS | Curve | 2.63 | 0.82 | 3.79 | 0.82-3.79 | 0.3098 | 10% |
| Oida et al. |
| 2006 | Japan | Asians | IHC | PC | 72 | NR | OS | HR | 1.264 | 0.733 | 2.18 | 0.733-2.180 | 0.399 | NR |
| Hong et al. |
| 2011 | USA | Caucasians | IHC | PDCA | 323 | 12.1 months | OS | HR | 6.34 | 2.5 | 16.1 | 2.5-16.1 | 0.001 | 5% |
| Xu et al. |
| 2013 | China | Asians | IHC | PC | 60 | 11.93 months | OS | Curve | 3.53 | 2.02 | 4.85 | 2.02-4.85 | 0.006 | 70% |
| Jiao et al. |
| 2016 | China | Asians | IHC | PC | 84 | 30.2 months | OS | HR | 1.96 | 1.07 | 3.89 | 1.07-3.89 | 0.012 | 10% |
| Chen et al. |
| 2017 | China | Asians | IHC | PC | 80 | 34.8 months | OS | HR | 2.02 | 0.87 | 3.94 | 0.87-3.94 | 0.057 | 10% |
| Chang et al. |
| 2017 | China | Asians | IHC | IPMNPC | 87 | 46 months | OS | HR | 13.718 | 2.28 | 82.519 | 2.28-82.519 | 0.004 | NR |
| Grupp et al. |
| 2018 | Germany | Caucasians | IHC | PDCA | 34 | 45 months | OS | Curve | 2.15 | 0.87 | 3.48 | 0.87-3.48 | 0.375 | NR |
| Radulovic and Kruslin |
| 2018 | Croatia | Caucasians | IHC | PDCA | 61 | NR | OS | Curve | 1.56 | 1.13 | 2.93 | 1.13-2.93 | 0.02 | 5% |
| Noda et al. |
| 2019 | Japan | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 53 | 16 months | OS | Curve | 2.25 | 1.69 | 3.26 | 1.69-3.26 | 0.017 | NR |
| Wang et al. |
| 2019 | China | Asians | IHC | PC | 1.2 | 14.4 months | OS | HR | 22.9 | 18.9 | 26.8 | 18.9-26.8 | 0.005 | 75% |
PDCA, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; PC, pancreatic cancer; IPMNPC, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of pancreatic cancer; OS, overall survival; NR, not reported; IHC, immunohistochemistry.
Characteristics of eligible studies in the meta-analysis for the clinical features of pancreatic cancer.
| Author | Reference | Time | Country | Ethnicity | Method | Histology | Absent | Present | Cut-off | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E-cadherin+ | E-cadherin- | E-cadherin+ | E-cadherin- | ||||||||
| Lymph node metastasis | |||||||||||
| Karayiannakis et al. |
| 1998 | Greece | Caucasians | IHC | PC | 15 | 4 | 10 | 14 | 10% |
| Joo et al. |
| 2002 | Korea | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 11 | 8 | 1 | 10 | 10% |
| Shimamura et al. |
| 2003 | China | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 8 | 7 | 59 | 51 | 20% |
| Nakajima et al. |
| 2004 | Japan | Asians | IHC | PC | 4 | 5 | 9 | 12 | 10% |
| Shin et al. |
| 2005 | Korea | Asians | IHC | PC | 17 | 23 | 7 | 6 | 10% |
| Oida et al. |
| 2006 | Japan | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 21 | 26 | 4 | 9 | NR |
| Torer et al. |
| 2007 | Turkey | Caucasians | IHC | PA | 14 | 6 | 7 | 1 | NR |
| Pryczynicz et al. |
| 2010 | Poland | Caucasians | IHC | PDCA | 7 | 12 | 2 | 8 | 50% |
| Hong et al. |
| 2011 | USA | Caucasians | IHC | PDCA | 30 | 16 | 158 | 125 | 5% |
| Kurahara et al. |
| 2012 | Japan | Asians | IHC | PC | 19 | 10 | 12 | 35 | 10% |
| Gu et al. |
| 2013 | China | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 14 | 14 | 2 | 12 | 5% |
| Guo et al. |
| 2014 | China | Asians | IHC | PA | 27 | 21 | 9 | 19 | 10% |
| Jiao et al. |
| 2016 | China | Asians | IHC | PC | 37 | 14 | 16 | 17 | 10% |
| Chen et al. |
| 2017 | China | Asians | IHC | PC | 30 | 17 | 18 | 15 | 10% |
| Radulovic and Kruslin |
| 2018 | Croatia | Caucasians | IHC | PDCA | 7 | 18 | 8 | 22 | 5% |
| Wang et al. |
| 2019 | USA | Caucasians | IHC | PDCA | 32 | 8 | 63 | 17 | 10% |
| Noda et al. |
| 2019 | Japan | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 24 | 27 | 0 | 2 | NR |
| Differentiation | Poor | Moderate and Well | |||||||||
| E-cadherin+ | E-cadherin- | E-cadherin+ | E-cadherin- | ||||||||
| Yonemasu et al. |
| 2001 | Japan | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 1 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 10% |
| Joo et al. |
| 2002 | Korea | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 1 | 7 | 11 | 11 | 10% |
| Watanabe et al. |
| 2003 | Japan | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 0 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 10% |
| Hong et al. |
| 2011 | USA | Caucasians | IHC | PDCA | 72 | 74 | 116 | 67 | 5% |
| Gu et al. |
| 2013 | China | Asians | IHC | PDCA | 3 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 5% |
| Jiao et al. |
| 2016 | China | Asians | IHC | PC | 17 | 10 | 36 | 21 | 10% |
| Chen et al. |
| 2017 | China | Asians | IHC | PC | 18 | 8 | 30 | 24 | 10% |
| Wang et al. |
| 2019 | USA | Caucasians | IHC | PDCA | 30 | 14 | 65 | 11 | 10% |
PDCA, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; PC, pancreatic cancer; PA, pancreatic adenocarcinoma; NR, not reported; IHC, immunohistochemistry.
Figure 1Flow chart for literature search.
Meta-analysis result of pooled HR for overall survival in pancreatic cancer patients.
| Characteristics (Positive vs Negative) | Studies | Number | Pooled HR (95% CI) |
| Heterogeneity | Begg's test | Egger's test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 (%) |
| Z |
| T |
| |||||
| PC | ||||||||||
| OS | 11 | 1032 | 1.93 (1.59-2.27) | <0.05 | 20% | 0.256 | 1.17 | 0.243 | 1.28 | 0.234 |
| OS in Caucasians | 3 | 418 | 1.80 (1.07-2.54) | <0.05 | 12% | 0.323 | 1.57 | 0.117 | 3.17 | 0.195 |
| OS in Asians | 8 | 614 | 1.97 (1.59-2.35) | <0.05 | 30.20% | 0.187 | 0.74 | 0.458 | 0.67 | 0.526 |
| OS (HR) | 6 | 771 | 1.63 (1.15-2.12) | <0.05 | 0.00% | 0.574 | 1.88 | 0.06 | 2.85 | 0.05 |
| OS (Survival curve) | 5 | 261 | 2.23 (1.75-2.70) | <0.05 | 29.40% | 0.225 | 0.49 | 0.625 | -0.02 | 0.987 |
| PDCA | ||||||||||
| OS | 5 | 596 | 1.96 (1.50-2.41) | <0.05 | 0.00% | 0.547 | 0.49 | 0.624 | 1.03 | 0.379 |
PDCA, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; PC, pancreatic cancer; OS, overrall survival; HR, hazard ratio.
Figure 2Forest plot and funnel plot for the association between E-cadherin expression and overall survival of pancreatic cancer. (A) subgroup analysis for ethnicity; (B) subgroup analysis for cancer subtype; (C) subgroup analysis for the source of hazard ratios (HRs); (D) funnel plot for the association between E-cadherin expression and overall survival of pancreatic cancer.
Meta-analysis result of pooled ORs for clinical features of pancreatic cancer patients.
| Characteristics (Positive vs Negative) | Study | Pooled ORs (95% CI) |
| Heterogeneity | Begg's test | Egger's test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 (%) |
| Z |
| T |
| ||||
| Risk (Overall) | 4 | 6.70 (2.25-19.95) | <0.05 | 62.10 | 0.048 | 1.36 | 0.174 | 2.15 | 0.165 |
| Risk (Caucasians) | 2 | 38.84 (2.71-556.57) | <0.05 | 42.00 | 0.189 | -1.00 | 0.317 | – | – |
| Risk (Asians) | 2 | 4.01 (2.32-6.95) | <0.05 | 0.00 | 0.611 | 1.00 | 0.317 | – | – |
| Gender (Female vs Male) | 12 | 1.61(1.19-2.17) | <0.05 | 18.40 | 0.263 | 0.82 | 0.411 | -0.20 | 0.846 |
| Gender (Caucasians) (Female vs Male) | 3 | 2.14 (1.06-4.30) | <0.05 | 48.60 | 0.143 | 0.52 | 0.602 | 0.09 | 0.940 |
| Gender (Asians) (Female vs Male) | 9 | 1.50 (1.08-2.10) | <0.05 | 12.20 | 0.333 | 0.63 | 0.532 | -0.65 | 0.535 |
| Tumor grade (Overall) (G1 vs G2+G3) | 11 | 2.50 (1.40-3.00) | <0.05 | 37.90 | 0.096 | 0.08 | 0.938 | 0.35 | 0.736 |
| Tumor grade (Caucasians) (G1 vs G2+G3) | 5 | 1.38 (0.69-2.75) | >0.05 | 47.00 | 0.109 | 0.00 | 1.000 | 0.15 | 0.890 |
| Tumor grade (Asians) (G1 vs G2+G3) | 6 | 2.44 (1.54-3.86) | <0.05 | 25.40 | 0.244 | 0.56 | 0.573 | 1.07 | 0.344 |
| Lymph node metastasis (Overall) (N0 vs N1) | 17 | 1.88 (1.43-2.46) | <0.05 | 30.30 | 0.115 | 0.58 | 0.564 | 0.68 | 0.508 |
| Lymph node metastasis (Caucasians) (N0 vs N1) | 6 | 1.47 (0.96-2.25) | >0.05 | 14.60 | 0.321 | -0.19 | 0.851 | -0.05 | 0.962 |
| Lymph node metastasis (Asians) (N0 vs N1) | 11 | 2.22 (1.56-3.15) | <0.05 | 34.80 | 0.120 | 0.54 | 0.586 | 0.66 | 0.524 |
| TNM stage (Overall) (T1+T2 vs T3+T4) | 12 | 1.28 (0.91-1.81) | >0.05 | 31.00 | 0.143 | 0.00 | 1.000 | -0.26 | 0.803 |
| TNM stage (Caucasians) (T1+T2 vs T3+T4) | 3 | 2.04 (0.95-4.36) | >0.05 | 30.30 | 0.238 | 0.52 | 0.602 | 0.06 | 0.960 |
| TNM stage (Asians) (T1+T2 vs T3+T4) | 9 | 1.13 (0.77-1.67) | >0.05 | 31.00 | 0.170 | -0.42 | 0.677 | -0.51 | 0.626 |
| Metastasis (Overall) (M0 vs M1) | 12 | 1.58 (1.04-2.39) | <0.05 | 0.00 | 0.627 | 1.95 | 0.052 | 0.66 | 0.523 |
| Metastasis (Caucasians) (M0 vs M1) | 2 | 3.02 (0.68-13.31) | >0.05 | 23.40 | 0.253 | 1.00 | 0.317 | – | – |
| Metastasis (Asians) (M0 vs M1) | 10 | 1.48 (0.96-2.29) | >0.05 | 0.00 | 0.619 | 1.04 | 0.297 | 0.07 | 0.945 |
| Vascular invasion (Overall) (Absent vs Present) | 5 | 1.01 (0.71-1.44) | >0.05 | 0.00 | 0.421 | 0.49 | 0.624 | 0.08 | 0.939 |
| Vascular invasion (Caucasians) (Absent vs Present) | 2 | 0.98 (0.64-1.52) | >0.05 | 0.00 | 0.343 | 0.52 | 0.602 | 0.93 | 0.523 |
| Vascular invasion (Asians) (Absent vs Present) | 3 | 1.06 (0.58-1.92) | >0.05 | 32.80 | 0.226 | -1.00 | 0.317 | – | – |
| Differentiation (Overall) (Poor vs Well) | 8 | 0.55 (0.4-0.76) | <0.05 | 53.1 | 0.04 | -0.99 | 0.322 | -1.32 | 0.236 |
| Differentiation (Caucasians) (Poor vs Well) | 2 | 0.52 (0.35-0.77) | <0.05 | 0 | 0.39 | -1.00 | 0.317 | – | – |
| Differentiation (Asians) (Poor vs Well) | 6 | 0.62 (0.37-1.05) | >0.05 | 63.4 | 0.02 | -0.94 | 0.348 | -3.54 | 0.024 |
TNM, T: Tumor, N: Lymph Node, M: Metastasis.
Meta-analysis results of pooled ORs for clinical features in PDCA patients.
| Characteristics (Positive vs Negative) | Studies | Pooled ORs (95% CI) |
| Heterogeneity | Begg's test | Egger's test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 (%) |
| Z |
| T |
| ||||
| Gender (Female vs Male) | 7 | 1.73 (1.14-2.63) | <0.05 | 36.60 | 0.149 | -0.45 | 0.652 | -0.40 | 0.707 |
| Gender (Caucasians) (Female vs Male) | 3 | 2.14 (1.06-4.30) | <0.05 | 48.60 | 0.143 | 0.52 | 0.602 | 0.09 | 0.940 |
| Gender (Asians) (Female vs Male) | 4 | 1.53 (0.91-2.57) | >0.05 | 43.60 | 0.150 | -0.68 | 0.497 | -0.70 | 0.558 |
| Tumor grade (Overall) (G1 vs G2+G3) | 5 | 1.44 (0.87-2.38) | >0.05 | 23.50 | 0.265 | -0.49 | 0.624 | -0.32 | 0.771 |
| Tumor grade (Caucasians) (G1 vs G2+G3) | 3 | 0.85 (0.34-2.13) | >0.05 | 22.30 | 0.276 | 0.52 | 0.602 | 0.40 | 0.760 |
| Tumor grade (Asians) (G1 vs G2+G3) | 2 | 1.80 (0.87-2.38) | >0.05 | 0.00 | 0.398 | 1.00 | 0.317 | – | – |
| Lymph node metastasis (Overall) (N0 vs N1) | 9 | 1.66 (1.14-2.43) | <0.05 | 6.40 | 0.382 | 2.29 | 0.022 | 2.35 | 0.050 |
| Lymph node metastasis (Caucasians) (N0 vs N1) | 4 | 1.35 (0.84-2.16) | >0.05 | 0.00 | 0.850 | 0.68 | 0.497 | 0.17 | 0.878 |
| Lymph node metastasis (Asians) (N0 vs N1) | 5 | 2.44 (1.28-4.67) | <0.05 | 37.60 | 0.170 | 1.47 | 0.142 | 2.27 | 0.108 |
| TNM stage (Overall) (T1+T2 vs T3+T4) | 5 | 0.75 (0.39-1.46) | >0.05 | 21.70 | 0.276 | 0.49 | 0.624 | 0.68 | 0.543 |
| Metastasis (Overall) (M0 vs M1) | 6 | 1.76 (1.03-3.01) | <0.05 | 0.00 | 0.923 | 0.49 | 0.624 | 0.04 | 0.971 |
| Differentiation (Overall) (Poor vs Well) | 5 | 0.44 (0.30-0.63) | <0.05 | 34.20 | 0.193 | -1.96 | 0.050 | -11.35 | 0.001 |
| Differentiation (Caucasians) (Poor vs Well) | 2 | 0.52 (0.35-0.77) | <0.05 | 0.00 | 0.392 | -1.00 | 0.317 | – | – |
| Differentiation (Asians) (Poor vs Well) | 3 | 0.14 (0.05-0.45) | <0.05 | 0.00 | 0.609 | -1.57 | 0.117 | -2.49 | 0.243 |
PDCA, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; TNM, T: Tumor, N: Lymph Node, M: Metastasis.
Figure 3Forest plot for the association of E-cadherin expression with gender, grade, lymph node metastasis, and differentiation of patients with pancreatic cancer. (A) gender; (B) tumor grade; (C) lymph node metastasis; (D) differentiation.