4.6 Article

Clinicopathologic Features and Prognostic Implications of Golgi Phosphoprotein 3 in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 10, Issue 23, Pages 5754-5763

Publisher

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/jca.30067

Keywords

GOLPH3; non-small cell lung cancer; biomarker; prognosis; meta-analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81670051]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A number of studies have investigated the role of Golgi phosphoprotein-3 (GOLPH3) in the pathogenesis and progression of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the results of previous studies are heterogeneous and controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to clarify its association with the clinicopathological characteristics of patients and evaluate the prognostic significance of GOLPH3 in NSCLC. Methods: A systematic search was conducted through PMC, PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang database. The odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95 % CI were calculated by STATA 12.0. Results: 8 qualified studies with a total of 1001 patients with NSCLC were included. Pooled results showed that GOLPH3 was highly expressed in tumor tissues compared with adjacent lung tissues (OR, 7.55), and overexpression of GOLPH3 was significantly correlated with advanced clinical stage (OR, 3.42), poor differentiation of tumor (OR, 1.97) and positive lymph node metastasis (OR, 2.58), but no association with histological type, gender, age or tumor size was found in NSCLC patients. In addition, the pooled HR for overall survival was 1.79 by univariate analysis and 1.91 by multivariate analysis. The pooled HR for progression-free survival was 2.50. Conclusions: GOLPH3 could be a risk factor for progression of NSCLC and might act as a potential prognostic biomarker for NSCLC patients.

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