4.3 Article

MUC1 overexpression predicts worse survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: evidence from an updated meta-analysis

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 8, Issue 52, Pages 90315-90326

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.19861

Keywords

mucin1; biomarker; NSCLC; prognosis; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. Jiangsu Provincial Six Talent Peak of Human Affairs Hall Funding [WSW-037]
  2. Jiangsu Cancer Hospital [ZQ201506]
  3. National Science Foundation for Young Scholars [81302013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Previous studies on the prognostic role of MUC1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to appraise the clinicopathological and prognostic effect of MUC1 in NSCLC patients. Materials and Methods: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE and CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure) were conducted and relevant studies were extracted. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate effects. Heterogeneity among studies and publication bias were also evaluated. Results: A total of 15 studies with 1,682 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled HRs indicated that elevated MUC1 expression was associated with poorer overall survival (HR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.47-3.05; P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.53-2.62; P < 0.001) in patients with NSCLC. Significant associations were also found in patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) (HR = 3.16, 95% CI: 2.21-4.52, P < 0.001) and with a platinum-based regimen (HR = 4.35, 95% CI: 2.45-7.72, P < 0.001). Additionally, MUC1 overexpression was significantly associated with performance status (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.13-4.73, P = 0.021). Conclusions: MUC1 could be a valuable biomarker of the prognoses of 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

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available