4.4 Review

Clinical and Prognostic Significance of CD117 in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systemic Meta-Analysis

期刊

PATHOBIOLOGY
卷 88, 期 4, 页码 267-276

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000514386

关键词

Cancer stem cell; Cluster of differentiation 117; Non-small cell lung cancer; Prognosis; Biomarker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CD117 expression in NSCLC patients is not correlated with gender, clinical stage, tumor grade, T-stage, distal metastasis, and disease-free survival, but is associated with lymph node metastasis, histological type, and worse overall survival.
The aim of this study was to assess the relationship of cluster of differentiation 117 (CD117) expression with the clinicopathological characteristics and the prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). No meta-analysis concerning the correlation of CD117 expression with clinical and prognostic values of the patients with NSCLC is reported. A systematic literature search was conducted to achieve eligible studies. The combined odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs: multivariate Cox analysis) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in this analysis. Final 17 eligible studies with 4,893 NSCLC patients using immunohistochemical detection were included in this meta-analysis. CD117 expression was not correlated with gender (male vs. female), clinical stage (stages 3-4 vs. stages 1-2), tumor grade (grade 3 vs. grades 1-2), T-stage (T-stages 3-4 vs. T-stages 0-2), distal metastasis, and disease-free survival (DFS) of NSCLC (all p values >0.05). CD117 expression was associated with lymph node metastasis (positive vs. negative: OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56-0.97, p = 0.03), histological type (adenocarcinoma (AC) versus squamous cell carcinoma (SCC): OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.26-2.39, p = 0.001), and a worse overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.22-2.92, p = 0.004). The expression of CD117 was significantly higher in AC than in SCC. CD117 may be an independent prognostic indicator for worse OS in NSCLC.

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

4.4
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