| Literature DB >> 35189920 |
Chunping Cai1, Xiaoji Wang1, Qiurong Fu2, Ai Chen3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the relationship between vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and prognosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma by meta-analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Meta-analysis; Prognosis; VEGF
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35189920 PMCID: PMC8859901 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-022-02511-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1The flow diagram of this meta-analysis
Characteristics of the included studies in this meta-analysis
| Study | Year | Country | Cancer type | Total | Tumor stage | Method | Cutoff | VEGF expression | Survival analysis | Multivariate analysis | HR statistic | HR (95% CI) | Follow-up months | NOS score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High expression | High with LNM | Low expression | Low with LNM | ||||||||||||||
| Byung [ | 2006 | Korea | ICC | 79 | I–IV | RT-qPCR | Median | 36 | 7 | 21 | 3 | OS | Rep | SC | 2.02 (1.18–3.46) | 72 | 8 |
| Liu [ | 2010 | China | ICC | 86 | I–IV | RT-qPCR | Median | 69 | 27 | 11 | 1 | OS | NR | SC | 1.95 (0.73–5.16) | 140 | 7 |
| Shinichi [ | 2008 | Japan | ICC | 62 | I–IV | RT-qPCR | Mean | 88 | 19 | 62 | 19 | OS | Rep | SC | 1.74 (1.07–2.82) | 120 | 7 |
| Wang [ | 2009 | China | ICC | 130 | I–IV | RT-qPCR | Median | 69 | 27 | 11 | 1 | OS | NR | SC | 2.85 (1.08–7.56) | 140 | 8 |
| Xiao [ | 2012 | China | ICC | 60 | I–IV | RT-qPCR | Mean | 47 | 19 | 11 | 2 | OS | NR | SC | 1.66(0.71–3.90) | 60 | 7 |
| Xu [ | 2015 | China | ICC | 435 | I–IV | RT-qPCR | Mean | 65 | 13 | 27 | 2 | OS | Rep | SC | 3.003 (1.016–8.875) | 100 | 8 |
| Zhu [ | 2020 | China | ICC | 102 | I–IV | RT-qPCR | Median | 122 | 73 | 21 | 5 | OS | NR | SC | 1.82 (1.17–2.82) | 60 | 7 |
ICC intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, HR hazard ratio, LNM lymph node metastasis, NR no report, OS overall survival, Rep report, RT-qPCR real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction, SC survival curve, NOS Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
Fig. 2Meta-analysis of the pooled HR and OS in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with the expression level of VEGF. OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor
Fig. 3Subgroup analysis of HR for the association between VEGF expression and overall survival. A Sample size. B follow-up time. C cutoff value. VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; HR, hazard ratio
Fig. 4Detection of publication bias and sensitivity analysis of the meta-analysis. A Egger’s funnel plot. B sensitivity analysis of poor HR for heterogeneity analysis. HR, hazard ratio
Main results of the association between VEGF and characteristics of patients with cholangiocarcinoma
| Stratified analysis | No. of studies | No. of patients | Pooled HR/OR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | |||||||
| OS | |||||||
| Overall | 7 | 496 | 1.93 (1.52, 2.46) | < 0.001 | 0 | 0.95 | FEM |
| Clinicopathological features | |||||||
| Age (> 60 vs. ≤ 60) | 5 | 372 | 0.82 (0.49, 1.37) | 0.45 | 0 | 0.70 | FEM |
| Gender (male vs. female) | 5 | 339 | 0.77 (0.45, 1.33) | 0.35 | 0 | 0.93 | FEM |
| LNM (yes vs. no) | 7 | 496 | 6.79 (3.93, 11.73) | < 0.001 | 0 | 1.00 | FEM |
| TNM stage (III–IV vs. I–II) | 5 | 372 | 4.35 (1.48, 12.79) | 0.007 | 58 | 0.05 | REM |
| Tumor size (> 5 cm vs. ≤ 5 cm) | 4 | 322 | 0.96 (0.57, 1.63) | 0.89 | 15 | 0.32 | FEM |
CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, OR odds ratio, LNM lymph node metastasis, OS overall survival, TNM tumor node metastasis, vs versus, FEM fixed-effects model, REM random-effects model
Fig. 5Meta-analysis of the clinicopathologic features in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with the expression level of VEGF. A Age (> 50 vs. ≤ 50). B gender. C LNM (yes vs. no). D TNM stage (III–IV vs. I–II). E tumor size (> 5 cm vs. ≤ 5 cm)