4.6 Review

Meta-analysis of microsatellite instability in relation to clinicopathological characteristics and overall survival in gastric cancer

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 105, 期 3, 页码 159-167

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10663

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Programme GastricGlycoExplorer [316929]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Several associations between microsatellite instability (MSI) and other clinicopathological factors have been reported in gastric cancer, but the results have been ambiguous. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the relationship between MSI and overall survival and clinicopathological characteristics of patients with gastric cancer. Methods: A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Ovid databases until 31 January 2016 was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The articles were screened independently according to PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) eligibility criteria. All eligible articles were evaluated independently by two reviewers for risk of bias according to the Quality In Prognosis Study tool. Results: Overall, 48 studies with a total of 18 612 patients were included. MSI was found in 92 per cent of patients (1718 of 18 612), and was associated with female sex (odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95 per cent c.i. 1.31 to 1.89; P<0.001), older age (OR 1.58, 2.20 to 1.13; P<0.001), intestinal Lauren histological type (OR 2.23, 1.94 to 2.57; P<0.001), mid/lower gastric location (OR 0.38, 0.32 to 0.44; P<0.001), lack of lymph node metastases (OR 0.70, 0.57 to 0.86, P<0.001) and TNM stage I-II (OR 1.77, 1.47 to 2.13; P<0.001). The pooled hazard ratio for overall survival of patients with MSI versus those with non-MSI gastric cancer from 21 studies was 0.69 (95 per cent c.i. 0.56 to 0.86; P<0.001). Conclusion: MSI in gastric cancer was associated with good overall survival, reflected in several favourable clinicopathological tumour characteristics.

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

4.6
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