Prognostic value of DNA aneuploidy in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 3449 cases.
Aneuploidy
Gastric cancer
Survival
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Jul 2019
02 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
23
03
2018
accepted:
24
06
2019
entrez:
4
7
2019
pubmed:
4
7
2019
medline:
4
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
DNA aneuploidy has attracted growing interest in clinical practice. Nevertheless, its prognostic value in gastric cancer patients remains controversial. This meta-analysis aims to explore the impact of DNA ploidy status on the survival of gastric cancer patients. We used PubMed and Web of Science databases to retrieve relevant articles. The correlation between DNA aneuploidy and the clinicopathological features of gastric cancer, such as stage, depth of invasion (T), lymph node metastasis (N), distant metastasis (M), differentiation (G), tumor types (Lauren classification) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were collected carefully from each article OS was presented with HRs. The relationships between DNA aneuploidy and each characteristic were analyzed using risk ratios (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Significance was established using P < 0.05. Funnel plot was conducted to detect the publication bias. After careful selection, 25 studies involving 3449 cases were eligible for further analyses. Patients with DNA aneuploidy were considered at risk of more advanced stages (stage III-IV vs. stages I-II, RR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.42; P = 0.003), lymph node metastasis (N+ vs. N-: RR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.82, P = 0.004), and intestinal tumor type (intestinal vs. diffuse: RR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.06; P = 0.04). And an adverse relation was observed between DNA aneuploidy and tumor differentiation. While no association was found between DNA aneuploidy and distant metastasis (P = 0.42) nor depth of tumor invasion (P = 0.86). Regarding overall survival, aneuploid tumors were associated with worse survival in all patients (P < 0.00001). We found that DNA aneuploidy was an important predictor for gastric cancer patients, and should be used as a potential biomarker for further classification in gastric cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
DNA aneuploidy has attracted growing interest in clinical practice. Nevertheless, its prognostic value in gastric cancer patients remains controversial. This meta-analysis aims to explore the impact of DNA ploidy status on the survival of gastric cancer patients.
METHODS
METHODS
We used PubMed and Web of Science databases to retrieve relevant articles. The correlation between DNA aneuploidy and the clinicopathological features of gastric cancer, such as stage, depth of invasion (T), lymph node metastasis (N), distant metastasis (M), differentiation (G), tumor types (Lauren classification) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were collected carefully from each article OS was presented with HRs. The relationships between DNA aneuploidy and each characteristic were analyzed using risk ratios (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Significance was established using P < 0.05. Funnel plot was conducted to detect the publication bias.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After careful selection, 25 studies involving 3449 cases were eligible for further analyses. Patients with DNA aneuploidy were considered at risk of more advanced stages (stage III-IV vs. stages I-II, RR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.42; P = 0.003), lymph node metastasis (N+ vs. N-: RR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.82, P = 0.004), and intestinal tumor type (intestinal vs. diffuse: RR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.06; P = 0.04). And an adverse relation was observed between DNA aneuploidy and tumor differentiation. While no association was found between DNA aneuploidy and distant metastasis (P = 0.42) nor depth of tumor invasion (P = 0.86). Regarding overall survival, aneuploid tumors were associated with worse survival in all patients (P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We found that DNA aneuploidy was an important predictor for gastric cancer patients, and should be used as a potential biomarker for further classification in gastric cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31266459
doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5869-9
pii: 10.1186/s12885-019-5869-9
pmc: PMC6607593
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Neoplasm
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
650Subventions
Organisme : the national natural science fundation of china
ID : 81572430 and 81872047
Références
Hepatogastroenterology. 1999 May-Jun;46(27):2039-43
pubmed: 10430394
Cytometry. 2000 Feb 15;42(1):27-34
pubmed: 10679740
Oncol Rep. 2000 May-Jun;7(3):579-84
pubmed: 10767371
Br J Cancer. 2001 Jul 6;85(1):14-22
pubmed: 11437396
Cancer. 2001 Jul 15;92(2):294-302
pubmed: 11466682
Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1965;64:31-49
pubmed: 14320675
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2005 Aug;27(8):492-5
pubmed: 16188150
Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2006 Dec;18(6):658-67
pubmed: 17046232
Anticancer Res. 2007 Nov-Dec;27(6C):4435-41
pubmed: 18214057
Anticancer Res. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4C):2279-87
pubmed: 18751407
Cell Oncol. 2009;31(1):61
pubmed: 19096152
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Br J Cancer. 2009 Sep 15;101(6):1011-8
pubmed: 19738619
Cancer. 1991 May 15;67(10):2588-93
pubmed: 2015558
Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1991;418(4):301-9
pubmed: 2024451
Br J Cancer. 1991 May;63(5):765-8
pubmed: 2039701
Hum Pathol. 1991 Apr;22(4):373-8
pubmed: 2050371
BMC Cancer. 2012 Jun 21;12:264
pubmed: 22892134
Surgery. 1990 Mar;107(3):262-7
pubmed: 2309145
Nature. 2014 Sep 11;513(7517):202-9
pubmed: 25079317
Cell Div. 2015 May 20;10:3
pubmed: 26015801
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015 Aug;30(8):1015-28
pubmed: 26054386
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov;45(Pt A):139-45
pubmed: 26343745
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul 14;22(26):5896-908
pubmed: 27468184
Oncotarget. 2016 Sep 13;7(37):60218-60229
pubmed: 27528028
J Pathol. 1989 Jul;158(3):195-201
pubmed: 2769480
Pathol Res Pract. 1989 Jun;184(6):561-6
pubmed: 2780430
Cancer Med. 2017 Jun;6(6):1453-1464
pubmed: 28544703
Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1988 Jun;10(3):200-6
pubmed: 3408546
Br J Cancer. 1987 Jul;56(1):52-4
pubmed: 3620318
J Pathol. 1986 Apr;148(4):273-7
pubmed: 3701493
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Br J Surg. 1995 Jul;82(7):960-2
pubmed: 7648120
Scand J Gastroenterol. 1995 Mar;30(3):258-64
pubmed: 7770716
J Korean Med Sci. 1993 Oct;8(5):348-54
pubmed: 8305143
Arch Surg. 1993 Mar;128(3):314-7
pubmed: 8442689
J Surg Oncol. 1993 Apr;52(4):207-12
pubmed: 8468980
World J Surg. 1996 Jan;20(1):27-31
pubmed: 8588408
Int J Cancer. 1996 Jul 17;67(2):190-3
pubmed: 8760586
J Surg Oncol. 1997 Aug;65(4):237-41
pubmed: 9274787
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1997 Aug;27(4):221-6
pubmed: 9379507
Oncology. 1998 Jul-Aug;55(4):300-6
pubmed: 9663419
Anal Cell Pathol. 1998;16(4):223-31
pubmed: 9762369