4.2 Review

Duplex value of caveolin-1 in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta analysis

期刊

FAMILIAL CANCER
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 449-457

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10689-014-9707-6

关键词

Non-small cell lung cancers; Caveolin-1; Prognosis; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Caveolin-1 (Cav-1) may act as a prognostic biomarker in human cancers. This study is prepared to clarify the prognostic value of Cav-1 in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). All eligible articles from China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Pubmed, Highvire, and Science Direct systems were incorporated into this study. We extracted the patients' clinical characteristics and survival outcomes and performed a meta-analysis to demonstrate the prognostic role of Cav-1 and the correlations between Cav-1 expression and clinical characteristics. Thirteen articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Cav-1 is deregulated in human lung cancers (NSCLC and small cell lung cancer) compared to noncancerous tissues (chi(2) = 200.478, p < 0.005), but the difference of expression level of Cav-1 is not significant (chi(2) = 2.248, p > 0.005) among different types of NSCLC, such as adenocarcinomas (ADs), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and miscellaneous cancers. Cav-1 expression could predict the poor prognosis of patients with NSCLC. The combined hazard ratio (HR, 95 % CI) was 2.00 (1.54, 2.60) for overall survival (OS) and 3.14 (1.68, 5.88) for progression free survival or disease free survival. The combined HR (95 % CI) of OS was 2.29 (1.26, 4.17) for ADs and 3.21 (1.69, 6.09) for SCC. The Cav-1 expression was associated with age, differentiation, primary tumor stage, tumor node metastasis stage, lymph node metastasis, chemotherapeutic response, and other clinical characteristics. We also analyzed the odds ratios of Cav-1 expression in AD and SCC patients by subgroups. Cav-1 plays a duplex role in tumorigenesis and tumor progression. Cav-1 may be another biomarker to predict the prognosis of lung cancers.

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

4.2
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