4.1 Article

Prognostic Value of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression in Resected Gastric Cancer

Journal

ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages 3089-3097

Publisher

ASIAN PACIFIC ORGANIZATION CANCER PREVENTION
DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.7.3089

Keywords

Gastric cancer; prognosis; growth factors and signal transduction; VEGF

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a potential prognostic biomarker for patients with resected gastric cancer. However, its role remains controversial. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. Methods: Relevant literature was identified using Medline and survival data from published studies were collected following a methodological assessment. Quality assessment of eligible studies and meta-analysis of hazard ratio (HR) were performed to review the correlation of VEGF overexpression with survival and recurrence in patients with gastric cancer. Results: Our meta-analysis included 44 published studies with 4,794 resected patients. VEGF subtype for the prediction of overall survival (OS) included tissue VEGF (HR=2.13, 95% CI 1.71-2.65), circulating VEGF (HR=4.22, 95% CI 2.47-7.18), tissue VEGF-C (HR=2.21, 95% CI 1.58-3.09), tissue VEGF-D (HR=1.73, 95% CI 1.25-2.40). Subgroup analysis showed that HRs of tissue VEGF for OS were, 1.78 (95% CI 0.90-3.51) and 2.31 (95% CI 1.82-2.93) in non-Asians and Asians, respectively. The meta-analysis was also conducted for disease free survival (DFS) and disease specific survival (DSS). Conclusion: Positive expression of tissue VEGF, circulating VEGF, VEGF-C and VEGF-D were all associated with poor prognosis in resected gastric cancer. However, VEGF demonstrated no significant prognostic value for non-Asian populations. Circulating VEGF may be better than tissue VEGF in predicting prognosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available