4.6 Article

Stromal Myofibroblasts Are Associated with Poor Prognosis in Solid Cancers: A Meta-Analysis of Published Studies

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159947

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81501601]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of An Hui Province, China [1608085QH198]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Published studies have evaluated the impact of stromal myofibroblasts on prognosis in solid cancers. However, the results of these studies remain controversial. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to address this issue. Methods The PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Embase databases were searched through November 30th, 2015 by two investigators, and a total of 17 studies that contained 2606 patients were included. Stromal myofibroblasts were quantified in solid cancers using a-smooth muscle actin staining. Pooled Odds Ratio with 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated, and publication bias was analyzed. Results The results of this study suggest that in solid cancers, a high density of stromal myofibroblasts is significantly associated with poor 3- and 5-year overall survival (pooled odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.33 (1.10-1.60) for 3-year overall survival and 1.68 (1.22-2.32) for 5-year overall survival). In addition, a high density of stromal myofibroblasts also predicted poor 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (1.30 (1.05-1.60) for 3-year disease-free survival and 1.36 (1.01-1.83) for 5-year disease-free survival). However, stromal myofibroblasts were not associated with 3- and 5-year cancer-specific survival. No publication bias was found for all analyses. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that a high density of stromal myofibroblasts is associated with poor survival in solid cancers. More studies were required to investigate the prognostic value of stromal myofibroblasts in different types of solid cancers.

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