4.0 Article

Association between MMP-2 expression and prostate cancer: A meta-analysis

Journal

BIOMEDICAL REPORTS
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 241-245

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/br.2015.553

Keywords

matrix metalloproteinase-2; prostate cancer; benign prostatic hyperplasia; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) is a member of the MMP family, which is associated with numerous types of cancer. Although it has been widely reported, the prognostic value of MMP-2 expression in prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. Thus, the present meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association and prognostic value of MMP-2 expression in PCa. PubMed, Cochrane Library and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for all the published case-control studies on the association between MMP-2 expression and PCa until July 2015. The odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the association of MMP-2 expression and PCa. ORs and 95% CIs were applied to clarify this association. Several subgroup analyses were also conducted according to different indexes in the case group. In total, 8 studies including 675 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that MMP-2 expression in the PCa group was significantly higher than that in the benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) group (95% CI, 0.06-0.15; Z= 10.48; P< 0.00001). Furthermore, MMP-2 expression was significantly associated with Gleason Score (95% CI, 0.18-0.68; Z= 3.09; P= 0.002) and clinical stages (95% CI, 0.12-0.82; Z= 2.36; P= 0.02), and not significantly associated with Gleason score serum prostate specific antigen (95% CI, 0.30-1.66; Z= 0.80; P= 0.43). In conclusion, MMP-2 is overexpressed in PCa tissues compared with BPH. The expression of MMP-2 was significantly associated with the grade of PCa malignancy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available