| Literature DB >> 35116855 |
Jian Zhou1,2, Wanchun Wang1, Qian Yan3, Yingquan Luo3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have evaluated the effect of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) expression on the metastasis of patients with osteosarcoma (OS) while the results remain conflicting. Here we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the value of HER-2 in prognosis of OS.Entities:
Keywords: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2); meta-analysis; metastasis; osteosarcoma (OS)
Year: 2019 PMID: 35116855 PMCID: PMC8798607 DOI: 10.21037/tcr.2019.06.26
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Cancer Res ISSN: 2218-676X Impact factor: 1.241
Figure 1Schematic representation of the study selection.
Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis
| Ref | Study | Year | No. of patients | Age (median) | Method | Assay kit | NOS score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metastasis | Non metastasis | Metastasis | Non metastasis | ||||||||||
| ( | Wang | 2018 | 60 | 24 | IHC | OriGene | A1*B1>2 | 9 | 4 | 18 | 29 | 8 | |
| ( | Qin | 2017 | 45 | 28 | IHC | MXB | A2*B1≥3 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 29 | 7 | |
| ( | Mardanpour | 2016 | 28 | 26.44 | IHC | DAKO | A3≥2 | 13 | 4 | 1 | 10 | 8 | |
| ( | Chen | 2015 | 80 | 31.2 | IHC | MXB | – | 47 | 14 | 6 | 13 | 7 | |
| ( | Becker | 2013 | 27 | 13 | IHC | DAKO | A4≥2 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 17 | 7 | |
| ( | Ma | 2012 | 63 | 16 | IHC | Santa cruz | B2 | 12 | 26 | 0 | 25 | 7 | |
| ( | Ma | 2011 | 14 | 16 | IHC | Santa cruz | B2 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 8 | |
| ( | Su | 2009 | 30 | 18 | IHC | MXB | A5>1 | 3 | 15 | 2 | 10 | 7 | |
| ( | Qiu | 2006 | 69 | 17.4 | IHC | MXB | A5+B1≥4 | 19 | 9 | 10 | 31 | 8 | |
| ( | Qiu | 2006 | 38 | 17.7 | IHC | MXB | – | 10 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 7 | |
| ( | Zhou | 2003 | 25 | 14 | IHC | Ventana | A1≥2 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 8 | |
| ( | Morris | 2001 | 53 | 16.9 | IHC | DAKO | A1≥2 | 3 | 21 | 3 | 26 | 7 | |
| ( | Kilpatrick | 2001 | 41 | 29 | IHC | DAKO | B1≥2 | 14 | 26 | 0 | 1 | 7 | |
| ( | Gorlick | 1999 | 53 | 16.9 | IHC | DAKO | A2≥2 | 8 | 33 | 2 | 10 | 8 | |
| ( | Onda | 1996 | 26 | 19.9 | IHC | Nichirei Inc | – | 10 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 7 | |
A, positive cell percentage; A1, scored 1 (<25%), 2 (25–75%), 3 (>75%); A2, scored 0 (<5%), 1 (6–25%), 2 (26–50%), 3 (>50%); A3, scored 0–3+; A4, scored 0–1 (<30%), 2–3 (>30%); A5, scored 1 (>10%); B, staining intensity; B1, scored 0 (absence of staining), 1 (weak staining), 2 (moderate staining), 3 (strong staining); B2, scored by a pathologist.
Qualitative assessment of included study for osteosarcoma (OS) metastasis
| Column | Entries | Study | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang | Qin | Mardanpour | Chen | Becker | Ma | Ma | Su | Qiu | Qiu | Zhou | Morris | Kilpatrick | Gorlick | Onda | ||
| Section | Is the definition adequate | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ |
| Representativeness of the cases | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | |
| Selection of controls | ||||||||||||||||
| Definition of controls | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | |
| Comparability | Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design and analysis | ☆☆ | ☆ | ☆☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆ | ☆ | ☆☆ | ☆ | ☆☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆ | ☆ |
| Exposure | Ascertainment of exposure | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ |
| Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | |
| Non-Response rate | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | |
| Total scores | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | |
Figure 2HER-2 expression and metastasis of osteosarcoma patients.
Figure 3Forest plot for the sensitivity analysis in the meta-analysis.
Figure 4Funnel plot in the meta-analysis of the effect of HER-2 expression on osteosarcoma (OS) metastasis.