4.6 Article

The Prognostic Role of mTOR and P-mTOR for Survival in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116771

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2014AA022202]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81372504, 81241068, 81201851]
  3. Chinese Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2013M542281]
  4. Department of Science and Technology, Sichuan Province, China [2013JY0012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and phosphorylated mTOR (p-mTOR) are potential prognostic markers and therapeutic targets for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the association between mTOR/p-mTOR expression and NSCLC patients' prognosis remains controversial. Thus, a meta-analysis of existing studies evaluating the prognostic role of mTOR/p-mTOR expression for NSCLC was conducted. Materials and Methods A systemically literature search was performed via Pubmed, Embase, Medline as well as CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure). Studies were included that reported the hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI for the association between mTOR/p-mTOR expression and NSCLC patients' survival. Random-effects model was used to pool HRs. Results Ten eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis, with 4 about m-TOR and 7 about p-mTOR. For mTOR, the pooled HR of overall survival (OS) was 1.00 (95%CI 0.5 to 1.99) by univariate analysis and 1.22 (95%CI 0.53 to 2.82) by multivariate analysis. For p-mTOR, the pooled HR was 1.39 (95%CI 0.97 to 1.98) by univariate analysis and 1.42 (95%CI 0.56 to 3.60) by multivariate analysis. Conclusion The results indicated that no statistically significant association was found between mTOR/p-mTOR expression and NSCLC patients' prognosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available