4.7 Article

Prognostic value of phospho-Akt in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma: A meta-analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 135, 期 6, 页码 1417-1424

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28788

关键词

lung cancer; p-Akt; prognostic factor; survival; meta-analysis

类别

资金

  1. Zhejiang Province Medical and Health Science and Technology Project [2012KYA022]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172126]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have been inconsistent with respect to the reported associations between phospho-Akt (p-Akt) overexpression and lung cancer prognosis. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prognostic value of p-Akt in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Relevant articles were identified by searching MEDLINE. Hazard risks (HRs) from individual studies were calculated and pooled by using a random-effect model, and heterogeneity and publication bias analyses were also performed. Finally, 18 studies comprising 2,353 patients were included in the meta-analysis. p-Akt overexpression was associated with worse survival in NSCLC patients, and the pooled HRs for all the studies was 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-1.70; p < 0.01). After subgroup analysis, the association was strengthened in the surgery treatment group, with an HR of 1.44 (95% CI: 1.19-1.75; p < 0.01), while in the tyrosine kinase inhibitors treatment group, the statistical significance disappeared (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.70-2.14; p = 0.48). The HR in cases of early stage disease (I-III) was 1.35 (95% CI: 1.08-1.69; p = 0.04); however, in cases of late stage disease (III-IV), the association became non-significant (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.64-2.33; p = 0.54). Our results suggest that there was a significantly inverse association between p-Akt overexpression and the prognosis of NSCLC patients, and that this association appeared to be limited in early-stage patients who underwent surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据