4.3 Article

Predictive value of a serum-based proteomic test in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a meta-analysis

Journal

CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 2033-2039

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2014.934792

Keywords

EGFR inhibitor; Meta-analysis; NSCLC; Prediction; Proteomic test

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81272491]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Several studies have demonstrated that a serum-based proteomic test (VeriStrat*) is able to predict the clinical outcome of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). However, these studies have limited power to draw a precise conclusion because of their small sample sizes and inconsistent results. Therefore, a metaanalysis was carried out in an attempt to provide more persuasive evidence. Research design and methods: Electronic searches for relevant articles in PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science published up to May 2013 were conducted. Stata Statistical Software version 12.0 was applied for statistical analysis. The combined hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using fixed-effects models. Results: Eleven cohorts involving 706 patients collected from seven studies were subjected to final analysis. This serum-based proteomic test's 'good' status predicted a better clinical outcome with a pooled HR of 0.40 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.49; p<0.001) for overall survival (OS), and 0.49 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; p<0.001) for progression-free survival (PFS). There was no significant heterogeneity, but a slight publication bias in this study. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that this serum-based proteomic test has a predictive value for NSCLC patients treated with EGFR-TKIs. Future data are needed to validate and update our results.

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