| Literature DB >> 35145598 |
Imane El Alami1,2, Amina Gihbid1,3, Hicham Charoute1, Wafaa Khaali1, Selma Mohamed Brahim1, Nezha Tawfiq4, Rachida Cadi3, Khalid Belghmi2, Mohammed El Mzibri5, Meriem Khyatti1.
Abstract
The present meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the prognostic value of pre and post-Epstein Barr Virus (EBV) DNA load testing and to assess the clinical benefit of using this molecular approach in the prognosis for a better nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) management. Relevant studies were searched in different database until May 2020. Patient´s outcomes overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), progression-free survival (PFS), distant-metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local-regional-failure-free survival (LRFS), hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted from selected studies. The association of pre and post-EBV DNA load and survival outcomes was assessed using review manager and the pooled HRs with 95% CIs were calculated. Twenty-six eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 9966 patients. Pooled HRs showed that EBV DNA levels before and after treatment are significantly associated with survival outcomes, with HR (95% CI) of 2.09 [1.74, 2.51] for OS, 1.77 [1.19, 2.62] for DFS, 2.53 [2.18, 2.92] for DMFS, 1.78 [1.45, 2.19] for LRFS and 2.17 [1.91, 2.47] for PFS in pre-EBV DNA, and an HR (95%) of 4.52 [2.44, 8.36], 4.08 [2.38, 6.99], 5.59 [ 3.58, 8.71] and 8.88 [5.29, 14.90] for OS, DFS and PFS and DMFS in post-EBV DNA, respectively. High pre and post-EBV DNA levels were significantly associated with poor NPC patient´s survival outcomes; which clearly confirm the high interest to introduce viral EBV DNA load as a prognostic biomarker for NPC management. Copyright: Imane EL Alami et al.Entities:
Keywords: Epstein Barr Virus DNA load; Epstein-Barr virus; nasopharyngeal carcinoma; prognostic
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35145598 PMCID: PMC8797042 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2022.41.6.28946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
Figure 1flow diagram of study selection
global characteristics of eligible studies selected for the meta-analysis
| Authors | Year | Locationn | Study design | Inclusion period | Number of patients | Pre-cutoff | Post-cutoff | Survival outcome | Follow-up (median) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lin | 2004 | China | Prospective | 1999-2002 | 99 | 1500 | 0 | OS, PF | 30 (14-48) |
| Chen | 2016 | China | Retrospective | 2008-2012 | 404 | 4000 | - | OS, DMFS,PFS | 33.5 |
| Lan | 2016 | China | Retrospective | 2007-2011 | 755 | 10000 | - | DFS, DMFS, | 50 (3-87) |
| Peng | 2016 | China | Retrospective | 2009-2012 | 584 | 2010 | 2 | OS, DFS, LRFS, DMFS, | 38.2 (4.6-58.6) |
| Jin | 2017 | China | Retrospective | 2009-2012 | 1036 | 1500 | - | OS, DMFS,PFS | 60.1 (1.3-79.5) |
| Stoker | 2016 | Netherland | Prospective | 2009-2013 | 72 | 2000 | - | OS, DFS, | 25 |
| Xu | 2015 | China | Retrospective | 2006-2011 | 722 | 1500 | - | OS,LRFS, DMFS,PFS | 51.8 (1.7-136.5) |
| Wen-yi Wang | 2013 | China | Prospective | - | 210 | 1500 | - | OS, PFS | - |
| Xu | 2014 | China | Retrospective | 2006-2010 | 356 | 1500 | - | OS, DMFS,PFS | - |
| Lv | 2016 | China | Retrospective | 2009-2012 | 1501 | 4000 | - | OS,LRFS, DMFS,PFS | 48.4 (1.3-76.4) |
| Wen-yi Wang | 2016 | China | Retrospective | - | 931 | 100 | - | OS | 99 |
| Zhao | 2015 | China | Retrospective | 2006-3013 | 637 | 1500 | - | OS, PFS | - |
| Shen | 2015 | China | Retrospective | 2007-2011 | 89 | 7500 | - | OS, DMFS,PFS | 44.9 |
| Wei | 2014 | China | Retrospective | 2006-2009 | 214 | 1500 | - | OS,LRFS,DMFS, PFS | - |
| Leung | 2014 | China | Prospective | 2004-2006 | 107 | 4000 | - | OS,LRFS,DMFS,PFS | 73(4.9-89.6) |
| Twu | 2007 | Taiwan | Retrospective | - | 114 | 1500 | - | OS, PFS | 46 (22-67) |
| Chan | 2002 | China | Prospective | 1997-1999 | 170 | 4000 | 500 | OS,LRFS,DMFS,PFS | 29 (9.25-59.75) |
| Zhang | 2016 | China | Retrospective | 2010-2011 | 273 | - | 0 | OS, DMFS,DFS | 38.4 (5.13-57.4) |
| Wang | 2016 | Taiwan | Prospective | 2007-2016 | 178 | 5000 | - | OS, DMFS, | 57 (25- 117) |
| Prayongrat | 2017 | Thailand | Retrospective | 2010-2015 | 204 | 0 | - | OS, DMFS,PFS | 35.1 (1.6-77.4) |
| Hsu | 2011 | China | Prospective | 2007-2010 | 73 | 5000 | - | OS | 31 (20-40) |
| Wen-yi Wang | 2010 | Taiwan | Prospective | 2005-2008 | 34 | 1500 | - | OS | 30 (18-50) |
| Huang | 2019 | China | Retrospective | 2012-2015 | 278 | 7000 | 0 | OS, DMFS,DFS,LRFS | 38 (5-67) |
| Chen | 2018 | China | Prospective | 2007-2012 | 419 | 1500 | - | OS, PFS | 56.7 |
| Liu | 2019 | China | Retrospective | 2008-2016 | 401 | - | - | OS, DMFS,LRFS | 32 (3- 118) |
| Lertbutsayanukul | 2018 | Thailand | Prospective | 2010 - 2015 | 105 | 2010 | - | OS,DMFS,PFS | 45.3 |
association between pre/post-EBV DNA and survival outcomes
| Outcomes | Number of studies | Model | HR (CI 95%) | P-value | Heterogeneity tests | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 % | P-value | |||||
|
| ||||||
| OS | 22 | R | 2.09[1.74,2.51] | 0.00001 | 48% | 0.007 |
| DFS | 4 | R | 1.77[1.19,2.62] | 0.005 | 65% | 0.04 |
| DMFS | 15 | F | 2.53[2.18,2.92] | 0.00001 | 18% | 0.26 |
| LRFS | 8 | F | 1.78[1.45,2.19] | 0.00001 | 11% | 0.34 |
| PFS | 17 | F | 2.17[1.91,2.47] | 0.00001 | 0% | 0.82 |
|
| ||||||
| OS | 15 | R | 4.52[2.44,8.36] | 0.00001 | 88% | 0.00001 |
| DFS | 4 | R | 4.08[2.38,6.99] | 0.00001 | 72% | 0.01 |
| DMFS | 9 | R | 8.88[5.29,4.90] | 0.00001 | 72% | 0.0004 |
| LRFS | 4 | F | 1.64[0.99,2.71] | 0.05 | 0% | 0.40 |
| PFS | 11 | R | 5.59[3.58,8.71] | 0.00001 | 73% | 0.0001 |
R: random effect mode; F: fixed effect model
association between pre-EBV DNA cutoffs and survival outcomes
| Outcomes | Number of studies | Model | HR (CI 95%) | P-value | Heterogeneity tests | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 % | P-value | |||||
|
| ||||||
| OS | 10 | F | 1.88[1.56,2.26] | 0.00001 | 28% | 0.18 |
| DMFS | 5 | F | 2.39[1.83,3.11] | 0.00001 | 0% | 0.73 |
| LRFS | 3 | R | 1.53[0.84,2.76] | 0.16 | 58% | 0.09 |
| PFS | 11 | F | 2.07[1.80,2.37] | 0.00001 | 0% | 0.82 |
|
| ||||||
| OS | 11 | R | 2.47[1.84,3.31] | 0.00001 | 45% | 0.05 |
| DFS | 4 | R | 1.77[1.19,2.62] | 0.005 | 65% | 0.04 |
| DMFS | 10 | F | 2.59[2.17,3.09] | 0.00001 | 39% | 0.10 |
| LRFS | 5 | F | 1.87[1.41,2.47] | 0.0001 | 0% | 0.57 |
| PFS | 6 | F | 2.18[1.78,2.67] | 0.00001 | 0% | 0.42 |
R: random effect model; F: fixed effect model
distribution of outcomes parameters according to the follow up duration
| Outcomes | Number of studies | Model | HR (CI 95%) | P-value | Heterogeneity tests | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 % | P-value | |||||
|
| ||||||
| OS | 13 | R | 2.23 [1.61, 3.09] | 0.0001 | 63% | 0.001 |
| DFS | 3 | R | 1.97 [1.13, 3.44] | 0.02 | 68% | 0.04 |
| DMFS | 9 | F | 2.94 [2.34, 3.70] | 0.00001 | 7% | 0.37 |
| LRFS | 4 | F | 2.13 [1.59, 2.37] | 0.00001 | 0% | 0.75 |
| PFS | 8 | F | 2.61 [1.99, 3.43] | 0.00001 | 0% | 0.90 |
|
| ||||||
| OS | 10 | F | 2.05 [1.76, 2.37] | 0.00001 | 17% | 0.29 |
| DMFS | 6 | F | 2.28 [1.88, 2.75] | 0.00001 | 9% | 0.36 |
| LRFS | 4 | F | 1.49 [1.11, 1.99 | 0.008 | 20% | 0.29 |
| PFS | 9 | F | 2.06 [1.78, 2.38] | 0.00001 | 0% | 0.69 |
R: random effect model; F: fixed effect model
evaluation of publication bias
| Outcomes | Number of studies | Publication bias (P-value) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| OS | 22 | 0.03983 |
| DFS | 4 | 0.4634 |
| DMFS | 15 | 0.5355 |
| LRFS | 8 | 0.8593 |
| PFS | 17 | 0.006583 |
|
| ||
| OS | 15 | 0.08663 |
| DFS | 4 | 0.4811 |
| DMFS | 9 | 0.07077 |
| LRFS | 4 | 0.4756 |
| PFS | 11 | 0.04864 |
Figure 2A) the funnel plot of the 22 included studies that reported the association between pre-EBV DNA levels and OS; B) the funnel plot of the 15 included studies that examined post-EBV DNA associated OS