| Literature DB >> 35888555 |
Xueting Liu1,2, Litao Huang3, Menghan Liu2,4, Zhu Wang1.
Abstract
Background: Signet ring cell carcinoma (SC) accounts for 1% of total colorectal cancer (CRC) cases and is associated with aggressive behaviors, such as lymphatic invasion and distant metastases, resulting in poor prognosis. To date, there is still a lack of consensus on the genetic etiology underpinning this cancer subtype. This study aimed to clarify the molecular associations of SC by using meta-analysis and a systematic review.Entities:
Keywords: colorectal cancer; meta-analysis; signet ring cell carcinoma; systematic review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35888555 PMCID: PMC9324575 DOI: 10.3390/medicina58070836
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) ISSN: 1010-660X Impact factor: 2.948
Figure 1Flowchart for selection of eligible articles.
Characteristics of included studies.
| 1st Author | Year | Country | Study Type | Enrolment Interval | Total | KRAS Mutated | BRAF Mutated | MSI-H | TP53 Positive | Ottawa Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hilmi Kodaz | 2015 | Turkey | Retro | 2007~2014 | 189 | 90 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 6 |
| Serap Yalcin | 2017 | Turkey | Retro | Not mention | 28 | N/A | 11 | N/A | N/A | 7 |
| Min Hye Jang | 2017 | South Korea | Retro | 2011~2014 | 346 | N/A | 20 | 35 | N/A | 7 |
| Reetesh K. Pai | 2012 | America | Retro | 2005~2010 | 181 | 78 | 20 | N/A | N/A | 7 |
| Shin Sasaki | 1998 | Japan | Retro | 1964~1996 | 70 | 33 | N/A | N/A. | N/A | 8 |
| Ho-Su Lee | 2015 | South Korea | Retro | 2003~2011 | 90 | N/A | N/A | 13 | N/A | 8 |
| Qing Wei | 2016 | China | Retro | 2008~2015 | 61 | N/A | 2 | N/A. | N/A | 8 |
| Xiao Zhitao | 2017 | China | Retro | 2011~2015 | 2684 | N/A | N/A | 275 | N/A | 6 |
| ClaudiaValentinaGeorgescu | 2007 | Romania | Retro | 2005 | 41 | N/A | N/A | N/A. | 24 | 6 |
| Ignacio I. Wistuba | 2003 | America | Retro | Not mention | 43 | 19 | N/A | 6 | 13 | 7 |
| Shuji Ogino | 2005 | America | Retro | Not mention | 568 | 176 | 72 | 95 | 238 | 7 |
| Hyunchul Kim | 2019 | South Korea | Retro | 2003~2012 | 46 | 25 | 2 | N/A | 17 | 7 |
| Mahmoud Tag Elsabah | 2013 | Egypt | Retro | Not mention | 26 | 11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 6 |
| Nahed A.Soliman | 2019 | Egypt | Retro | 2015~2018 | 115 | N/A | N/A | 54 | N/A | 6 |
| Y.Sugao | 1997 | Japan | Retro | 1963~1995 | 84 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 48 | 6 |
| Sanjay Kakar | 2012 | America | Retro | Not mention | 116 | 46 | 30 | 22 | N/A | 8 |
| David O.IRABOR | 2017 | Nigeria | Retro | 2007~2014 | 35 | N/A | N/A | 15 | N/A | 6 |
| Atif Ali Hashmi | 2017 | Pakistan | Retro | 2013~2015 | 100 | N/A | N/A | 34 | N/A | 6 |
| Gurjeet Kaur | 2011 | Malaysia | Retro | 2004~2007 | 150 | N/A | N/A | 28 | N/A | 6 |
| Nour El Hoda S.Ismael | 2017 | Egypt | Retro | 2012~2015 | 52 | N/A | N/A | 16 | N/A | 7 |
| Yuichi Kawabata | 1999 | Japan | Retro | 1981~1995 | 77 | 28 | N/A | 20 | 99 | 8 |
| Aghigh Koochak | 2016 | Iran | Cross sectional | 2008~2012 | 1000 | 336 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Not Done |
| Khaled R. Zalata | 2005 | Egypt | Retro | 2002~2004 | 75 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 29 | 6 |
| Ulrich Nitsche | 2016 | Germany | Pros | 1998~2012 | 256 | N/A | N/A | 89 | N/A | 8 |
| Sang Hun Jung | 2016 | South Korea | Retro | 2006~2012 | 176 | N/A | N/A | 56 | N/A | 7 |
| KentaroInamura | 2015 | America | Pros | 2008~2012 | 1220 | 440 | 179 | 190 | N/A | 7 |
| ChristopheRosty | 2014 | Australia | Retro | 1990~1994 | 738 | N/A | N/A | 86 | N/A | 8 |
| KrittiyaKorphaisarn | 2019 | America | Retro | 2009~2015 | 635 | 298 | 54 | 27 | 409 | 8 |
| Ying lv | 2019 | China | Retro | 2012~2017 | 164 | 72 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 6 |
Figure 2(1). Forest plot for KRAS between SRCC and non-SRCC (SRC component < 50% was not excluded). (2). Forest plot for KRAS between SRCC and C-CRC.
Figure 3(1). Forest plot for BRAF between SRCC and non-SRCC (SRC component < 50% was not excluded). (2). Forest plot for BRAF between SRCC and C-CRC.
Figure 4Forest plot for P53 status: (1). Forest plot for P53 status between SRCC and non-SRCC (using protein detection as test method). (2). Forest plot for P53 status between SRCC and non-SRCC (using gene detection as test method). (a) Forest plot for P53 status: (1). Forest plot for P53 status between SRCC and non-SRCC (SRC component < 50% was not excluded). (2). Forest plot for P53 status between SRCC and C-CRC. (b) Forest plot for P53 status: (1). Forest plot for P53 status between SRCC and non-SRCC (SRC component < 50% was not excluded). (2). Forest plot for p53 status between SRCC and C-CRC.
Figure 5Forest plot for MSI-H status: (1) Forest plot for MSI-H status between SRCC and non-SRCC (SRC component < 50% was not excluded). (2) Forest plot for MSI-H status between SRCC and C-CRC (* represents these articles use MMR as test methods).