4.5 Review

The prognostic value of the miR-200 family in ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

Journal

ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 95, Issue 5, Pages 505-512

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12883

Keywords

Meta-analysis; miR-200; ovarian cancer; survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction. To assess the association between miR-200 family expression and overall survival/progression-free survival in women with ovarian cancer. Material and methods. A systematic literature search, up to September 2015, in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library was performed to identify articles that assessed the association between miR-200 family expression and the survival of women with ovarian cancer. Summary hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval were calculated to estimate the effect. Results. A total of seven articles, consisting of 553 women, were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, significantly improved overall survival/progression-free survival were observed with higher expression of the miR-200 family in women with ovarian cancer (overall survival, hazard ratio = 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.58; progression-free survival, hazard ratio = 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.82). Subgroup analysis revealed that there was a significant association between enhanced expression of the miR-200c and improved overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.10-0.42) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.81). Moreover, in the Asian population, a significant association was found between higher expression of the miR-200 family and improved overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.45). Conclusion. High expression of miR-200c may predict improved survival in women with ovarian cancer and high expression of the miR-200 family significantly improves overall survival for Asian women.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available