4.6 Review

Long non-coding RNA XIST predicts worse prognosis in digestive system tumors: a systemic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BIOSCIENCE REPORTS
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BSR20180169

关键词

-

资金

  1. Zhongnan Hospital of Wu Han University Science, Technology and Innovation Seed Fund [cxpy2017054]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB720605]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing studies are indicating that long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) X-inactive specific transcript (XIST) is associated with the prognosis of cancer patients. However, the results have been disputed. Therefore, we aimed to further explore the prognostic value and clinical significance of XIST in various types of cancers. Then, we focussed our research on the comparison of the predictive value of XIST between digestive system tumors and non-digestive system tumors. We performed a systematic search by looking up PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline (up to 3 January 2018). Fifteen studies which matched our inclusion criteria with a total of 920 patients for overall survival and 867 patients for clinicopathological characteristics were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to summarize the effects. Our results suggested that high expression levels of XIST were associated with unfavorable overall survival in cancer patients (pooled HR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.45-2.26). Additionally, we found that XIST was more valuable in digestive system tumors (pooled HR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.73-2.92) than in non-digestive system tumors (pooled HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.60-2.45). Furthermore, elevated expression levels of XIST were connected with distant metastasis and tumor stage. XIST was correlated with poor prognosis, which suggested that XIST might serve as a novel predictive biomarker for cancer patients, especially for patients of digestive system tumors.

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