| Literature DB >> 34987674 |
Yu Wang1,2, Peng Wang3, Xin Liu1, Ziran Gao1, Xianbao Cao2, Xilong Zhao1,4.
Abstract
Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have emerged as critical regulators of tumor progression, and lncRNA expression levels could serve as a potential molecular biomarker for the prognosis and diagnosis of some cancers. However, the prognostic value of lncRNAs in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) remains unclear. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to explore the potential prognostic value of lncRNAs in OSCC. We systematically searched PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Elsevier from 2005 to 2021 to identify all published studies that reported the association between lncRNAs and prognosis in OSCC. Then, we used meta-analytic methods to identify the actual effect size of lncRNAs on cancer prognosis. The hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to assess the strength of the association. The reliability of those results was then examined using measures of heterogeneity and testing for selective reporting biases. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 17 studies were eligible in our meta-analysis, involving 1384 Asian patients. The results identified a statistically significant association of high lncRNA expression with poor overall survival [adjusted pooled hazard ratio (AHR) = 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1.26-1.84], p ≤ 0.001]. The present meta-analysis demonstrated that lncRNA expression might be used as a predictive prognostic biomarker for Asian patients with OSCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34987674 PMCID: PMC8720611 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6407528
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
Figure 1A flowchart of the article search.
Necessary information about the included studies.
| Study ID | lncRNA | Country | Sample | Reference | Detection method | Sample size | Outcome | Source of HR | Cutoff value | NOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jie Wu, 2015 [ | HOTAIR | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 100 | OS | Log rank | Median | 7 |
| Yonglong Hong, 2017 [ | H19 | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 42 | OS | Sur curve | NA | 6 |
| Luyi Chai, 2018 [ | ANRIL | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 130 | OS | Sur curve | Median | 6 |
| Yan Guo, 2018 [ | CEBPA-AS1 | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 60 | OS | Reported | Median | 3 |
| Gang Huang, 2018 [ | NEAT1 | China | Tissues | NEAT1/RGS20 | qPCR | 30 | OS | Sur curve | NA | 8 |
| Xiaohua Liu, 2018 [ | NEAT1 | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 58 | OS | Sur curve | Median | 7 |
| Koyo Nishiyama, 2018 [ | DLEU1 | Japan | Tissues | ACTB ( | qPCR | 252 | OS | Sur curve | Median | 8 |
| Tingru Shao, 2018 [ | AC0077271.3 | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 80 | OS | Reported | Median | 6 |
| Chengcao Sun, 2017 [ | PDIA3P | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 58 | OS | Sur curve | NA | 3 |
| Chengmei Yang, 2016 [ | SOX21-AS1 | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 86 | OS | Reported | Median | 6 |
| Chenzheng Zhang2, 2017 [ | FTH1P3 | China | Tissues | GAPDH/U6 | qPCR | 70 | OS | Log rank | Mean | 9 |
| Chenzheng Zhang1, 2017 [ | LINC00668 | China | Tissues | GAPDH/U6 | qPCR | 50 | OS | Log rank | Mean | 8 |
| Zhongzhi Jin, 2018 [ | MORT | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 59 | OS | Reported | Median | 7 |
| Zhe Liu, 2018 [ | HNF1A-AS1 | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 62 | OS | Sur curve | Median | 5 |
| Qian Lyu, 2019 [ | MINCR | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 80 | OS | Sur curve | Median | 6 |
| J, Wang, 2019 [ | LACAT1 | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 78 | OS | Sur curve | Median | 7 |
| Yixin Yang, 2019 [ | CASC9 | China | Tissues | GAPDH | qPCR | 84 | OS | Reported | Median | 9 |
Characteristics of the included studies.
| lncRNAs | Reference | U&M analysis | Case number | OS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High expression | Low expression | HR (95% CI) |
| |||
| HOTAIR | Jie Wu, 2015 [ | U | 30 | 70 | 2.64 (1.14-6.10) | 0.02 |
| H19 | Yonglong Hong, 2017 [ | U | 25 | 17 | 1.10 (1.0-1.21) | 0.05 |
| ANRIL | Luyi Chai, 2018 [ | U | 57 | 73 | 1.39 (1.07-1.80) | 0.01 |
| CEBPA-AS1 | Yan Guo, 2018 [ | U | 30 | 30 | 6.71 (3.61-8.73) | <0.001 |
| NEAT1 | Gang Huang, 2018 [ | M | 12 | 18 | 5.54 (1.5120.38) | 0.01 |
| NEAT1 | Xiaohua Liu, 2018 [ | U | 26 | 32 | 1.52 (1.02-2.28) | 0.04 |
| DLEU1 | Koyo Nishiyama, 2018 [ | M | 126 | 126 | 1.28 (1.05-1.56) | 0.01 |
| AC0077271.3 | Tingru Shao, 2018 [ | U | 40 | 40 | 3.08 (0.95-10.02) | 0.06 |
| PDIA3P | Chengcao Sun, 2017 [ | U | 32 | 26 | 2.72 (1.62-6.36) | <0.001 |
| ANRIL | Chengmei Yang, 2016 [ | U | 57 | 73 | 1.39 (1.07-1.80) | 0.01 |
| SOX21-AS1 | Chenzheng Zhang2, 2017 [ | M | 57 | 29 | 5.66 (1.85-17.30) | 0.002 |
| FTH1P3 | Chenzheng Zhang1, 2017 [ | U | 37 | 33 | 2.71 (1.40-5.27) | 0.003 |
| LINC00668 | Zhongzhi Jin, 2018 [ | U | 15 | 35 | 2.74 (1.07-7.01) | 0.03 |
| MORT | Zhe Liu, 2018 [ | U | 31 | 28 | 1.51 (1.08-2.11) | 0.02 |
| HNF1A-AS1 | Qian Lyu, 2019 [ | U | 32 | 30 | 1.75 (1.25-2.46) | <0.001 |
| MINCR | J, Wang, 2019 [ | U | 40 | 40 | 1.64 (1.11-2.43) | 0.01 |
| LACAT1 | Yixin Yang, 2019 [ | U | 34 | 44 | 2.33 (1.06-5.12) | 0.04 |
| CASC9 | Jie Wu, 2015 [ | M | 53 | 31 | 2.31 (1.12-4.75) | 0.02 |
lncRNAs and relevant targets in oral squamous cell carcinoma.
| lncRNAs | Poor prognosis | Role | Relevant targets | Function | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOTAIR | Upregulated | Oncogene | Cyclin D1, EGFR, c-Myc | Proliferation/invasion/metastasis/angiogenesis | [ |
| H19 | Upregulated | Oncogene | miR-138, EZH2 | Proliferation/invasion/apoptosis/EMT | [ |
| ARNIL | Upregulated | Oncogene | miR-125a, ESRRA | Proliferation/invasion/migration | [ |
| CEBPA-AS1 | Upregulated | Oncogene | CEBPA, Bcl2 | Proliferation/invasion/migration/apoptosis | [ |
| NEAT1 | Upregulated | Oncogene | miR-365, RGS20 | Migration/invasion/progression | [ |
| DLEU1 | Upregulated | Oncogene | HA-CD44 | Proliferation/invasion/migration | [ |
| AC007271.3 | Upregulated | Oncogene |
| Proliferation/invasion/migration | [ |
| PDIA3P | Upregulated | Oncogene | miR-185-5p, CCND2 | Proliferation. | [ |
| SOX21-AS1 | Upregulated | Oncogene | miR-145 | Proliferation/invasion/growth | [ |
| FTH1P3 | Upregulated | Oncogene | miR-224-5p | Proliferation | [ |
| LINC00668 | Upregulated | Oncogene | miR-297/VEGFA | Progression | [ |
| MORT | Upregulated | Oncogene | ROCK1 | Proliferation | [ |
| HNF1A-AS1 | Upregulated | Oncogene | STAT3 | Proliferation/migration/EMT | [ |
| MINCR | Upregulated | Oncogene | Wnt/ | Proliferation/invasion | [ |
| LACAT1 | Upregulated | Oncogene | MicroRNA-4301 | Proliferation/differentiation | [ |
| CASC9 | Upregulated | Oncogene | AKT/mTOR | Proliferation/apoptosis/autophagy/progression | [ |
Figure 2A meta-analysis evaluating the hazard ratio of lncRNA expression and the overall survival of OSCC. (a) The forest plot for evaluating all included studies. I2 = 71.80% was identified as higher heterogeneity, and the random-effect model was used. Publication bias was found, and HRs were adjusted by Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill method. (b) The funnel plot for detecting publication bias. Observed studies were represented by white circles. Possibly missed studies, represented by black circles, were imputed by Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill method. The observed and theoretical combined effect sizes were represented by white and black rhombuses, respectively.
Figure 3Forrest plots of studies evaluating hazard ratios of NEAT1 and the overall survival of OSCC patients. I2 = 71.05% was identified as higher heterogeneity, and the random-effect model was used.
Subgroup analyses of the prognosis of OSCC patients with lncRNA expression.
| Studies ( | HR (95% CI) |
| Heterogeneity |
|
|
| Pub. bias | AHRa (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All studies (17) | 1.84 (1.51-2.24) | <0.001 | 71.80 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | Yes | 1.52 (1.26-1.84) | <0.001 |
| U&M analysis | |||||||||
| Univariate (13) | 1.62 (1.35-1.95) | <0.001 | 67.48 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | Yes | 1.43 (1.20-1.71) | <0.001 |
| Multivariate (4) | 3.51 (2.16-5.71) | <0.001 | 9.57 | 0.35 | 0.50 | 0.22 | Yes | 2.50 (1.65-3.78) | <0.001 |
| Source of HR | |||||||||
| Sur curve (9) | 1.45 (1.20-1.74) | <0.001 | 66.98 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | Yes | 1.18 (1.10-1.27) | <0.001 |
| Reported (8) | 2.19 (1.74-2.74) | <0.001 | 37.28 | 0.12 | 0.04 | <0.01 | Yes | 1.85 (1.51-2.26) | <0.001 |
| NOS scoreb | |||||||||
| High (9) | 1.91 (1.56-2.32) | <0.001 | 11.96 | 0.34 | 0.04 | <0.01 | Yes | 1.64 (1.38-1.96) | <0.001 |
| Medium (6) | 1.92 (1.33-2.78) | <0.001 | 79.36 | <0.01 | 0.05 | <0.01 | Yes | 1.45 (1.01-2.07) | 0.04 |
| Low (2) | 3.78 (1.92-7.44) | <0.001 | 36.72 | 0.21 | — | — | NO | — | — |
Abbreviations: HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; Pub. bias: publication bias; AHR: adjusted HR; U&M analysis: univariate & multivariate analysis. aAHR: if publication bias was found, the HRs were adjusted and reevaluated; if the number of combined studies was not >3, the publication bias could not be analyzed. bNOS score: the NOS score was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and NOS scores of 1–3, 4–6, and 7–9 were considered to indicate low, medium, and high quality, respectively.