4.6 Article

PODXL might be a new prognostic biomarker in various cancers: a meta-analysis and sequential verification with TCGA datasets

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07108-5

Keywords

Cancer; Meta-analysis; Podocalyxin-like protein; Prognosis; TCGA

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ABSRACTBackgroundSeveral studies have investigated the associations between the podocalyxin-like protein (PODXL) expression quantity or locations and cancers survival, but the results were far from conclusive. Therefore, we proceeded a meta-analysis on PODXL in various human cancers to find its prognostic value and followed confirmation using the TCGA datasets.MethodsWe performed a systematic search, and 18 citations, including 5705 patients were pooled in meta-analysis. The results were verified with TCGA datasets.ResultsTotal eligible studies comprised 5705 patients with 10 types of cancer. And the result indicated that PODXL high-expression or membrane-expression were significantly related to poor overall survival (OS). However, subgroup analysis showed a significant association between high expressed PODXL and poor OS in the colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, urothelial bladder cancer, renal cell carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme. Then, we validated the inference using TCGA datasets, and the consistent results were demonstrated in patients with pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma multiforme, gastric cancer, esophageal cancer and lung adenocarcinoma.ConclusionThe result of meta-analysis showed that high expressed PODXL was significantly linked with poor OS in pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma multiforme, but not in gastric cancer, esophageal cancer or lung adenocarcinoma. And the membrane expression of PODXL might also associate with poor OS. PODXL may act as tumor promotor and may serve as a potential target for antitumor therapy.

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