Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of miR-638 in cancer patients: A meta-analysis

Introduction:MiR-638 is believed to be involved in human cancers. However, the prognostic value of miR-638 in human carcinomas is controversial and inconclusive. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the association between miR-638 expression and clinical outcomes in the patients with various cancers.Methods:We searched Pubmed, Embase, Wanfang, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to September 1, 2020 to identify relevant studies. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to correlate expression of miR-638 with prognosis and clinicopathological features.Results:A total of 18 studies involving 1886 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The results revealed that low miR-638 expression was significantly correlated with poor overall survival (OS) (HR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.46–2.98, P < .001), but not with disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 1.71, 95% CI: 0.31–9.56, P = .540). Subgroup analysis found that low miR-638 expression was associated with worse OS in patients with digestive system cancer (HR = 2.47, 95% CI: 1.85–3.30, P < .001), the reported directly from articles group (HR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.34–3.33, P < .001), survival curves group (HR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.07–3.80, P = .029), in studies with sample size ≥100 (HR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.34–3.35, P = .001), and in studies with sample size <100 (HR = 2.02, 95%CI: 1.09–3.75, P = .025). Moreover, cancer patients with low miR-638 expression were prone to tumor size (OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.03–2.09, P = .035), earlier lymph node metastasis (present vs absent, OR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.63–3.14, P < .001), earlier distant metastasis (present vs absent, OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.45–4.67, P < .001), TNM stage (III-IV vs I-II, OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.35–2.99, P = .001), and portal vein invasion (present vs absent, OR = 4.39, 95% CI:2.23–8.64, P < .001), but not associated with age, gender, tumor differentiation, and vascular invasion.Conclusions:MiR-638 may serve as a promising indicator in the prediction of prognosis and clinicopathological features in patients with different kinds of cancers.     

The relationship between NLR/PLR/LMR levels and survival prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

Background:The relationship between neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) and the dire prognosis of non-small cell lung carcinoma patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are not known yet.Methods:We screened the articles that meet the criteria from the database. The relationship between NLR/PLR/LMR levels and the survival and prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with ICIs was analyzed. Summarize hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to study progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Results:Thirty-four studies involving 3124 patients were enrolled in the final analysis. In short, high pre-treatment NLR was related to poor OS (HR = 2.13, 95% CI:1.74–2.61, P < .001, I² = 83.3%, P < .001) and PFS (HR = 1.77, 95% CI:1.44–2.17, P < .001, I² = 79.5%, P < .001). Simultaneously, high pre-treatment PLR was related to poor OS (HR = 1.49, 95% CI:1.17–1.91, P < .001, I² = 57.6%, P = .003) and PFS (HR = 1.62, 95% CI:1.38–1.89, P < .001, I² = 47.1%, P = .036). In all subgroup analysis, most subgroups showed that low LMR was related to poor OS (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34–0.59, P < .001) and PFS (HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47–0.77, P < 0.001, I² = 0.0%, P < .001).Conclusion:High pre-treatment NLR and pre-treatment PLR in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients treated with ICIs are associated with low survival rates. Low pre-treatment and post-treatment LMR are also related to unsatisfactory survival outcomes. However, the significance of post-treatment NLR and post-treatment PLR deserve further prospective research to prove.     

Association between Alpha B-crystallin expression and prognosis in patients with solid tumors: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Alpha B-crystallin (CRYAB), as a small heat shock protein, may play critical roles in the tumorigenesis and progression of several kinds of human cancers. However, the prognostic value of CRYAB in solid malignancies remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between CRYAB expression and clinicopathology and prognosis of solid tumor patients.Methods:PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases were systematically searched to retrieve studies that investigated the prognostic value of CRYAB expression in various solid tumors. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine the strength of association between CRYAB expression and survival in patients with solid tumors. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were pooled to assess the correlation between CRYAB expression and clinicopathological characteristics of patients with solid tumors.Results:A total of 17 studies, including 18 cohorts with 6000 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that increased CRYAB expression could predict poor overall survival (HR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.50–2.19, P < .001), disease-free survival (HR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.16–1.86, P = .001), and disease-specific survival (HR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.19–1.63, P < .001) in patients with cancer. Furthermore, the high expression level of CRYAB was associated with certain phenotypes of tumor aggressiveness, such as lymph node metastasis (OR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.48–4.11, P = .001), distant metastasis (OR = 3.34, 95% CI: 1.96–5.70, P < .001), advanced clinical stage (OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.24–4.08, P = .008), low OS rate (OR = 4.81, 95% CI: 2.82–8.19, P < .001), and high recurrence rate (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.11–1.72, P = .004).Conclusions:CRYAB may serve as a valuable prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target in human solid tumors.     

Prognostic role of tripartite motif containing 24 in various human solid malignant neoplasms: An updated meta-analysis and systematic review

Background:Currently, clinical studies of tripartite motif containing 24 (TRIM24) on human solid malignant neoplasms were developing, but the prognosis value of TRIM24 continues to be controversial. The aim of our study is to explore the prognostic effect of TRIM24 in various human solid malignant neoplasms.Methods:We performed a comprehensive research for eligible studies which evaluated the prognostic roles of TRIM24 in cancer patients based on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various malignances were extracted from eligible studies.Results:A total of 13 studies with 1909 patients were enrolled in this analysis. Combined analyses showed that high expression of TRIM24 significantly predicted poorer overall survival both in univariate analysis (HR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.21–2.15, P = .001) and multivariate analysis (HR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.10–4.38, P = .026). In stratified analyses, high TRIM24 expression level predicted even worse overall survival in hormone-related cancers (HR = 1.92, 95% CI 1.28–2.86, P = .001). Although, expression of TRIM24 failed to show a significant relation with progression-free survival/disease-free survival/recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.42, 95% CI 0.93–2.16, P = .106), high expression predicted significant worse progression-free survival/disease-free survival/recurrence-free survival in hormone-related cancer (HR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.12–2.59, P = .013).Conclusion:TRIM24 could serve as a new biomarker for patients with solid malignancies and could be a potential therapeutic target for patients especially for patients with hormone-related malignancies.     

The therapeutic effect and safety of the drugs for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread almost all regions of the world and caused great loss to the whole body of mankind. Thus, numerous clinical trials were conducted to find specific medicine for COVID-19 recently. However, it remains unanswered whether they are beneficial.Objective:This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of the COVID-19 medicine.Methods:Studies were determined through searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Medline. The studies of COVID-19 medicine were involved with eligible end points containing mortality, discharge rate, rate of clinical improvement, and rate of serious adverse events.Results:A total of 33 studies involving 37,879 patients were included in our study, whose intervening measures contained three major types of COVID-19 medicine, ACEI/ARB, antiviral medicine, and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine. Compared to control group, COVID-19 drugs have no distinct effect on mortality (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79–1.11, P = .43) and discharge rate (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98–1.14, P = .13). However, antiviral medicine presents the obvious advantage in clinical improvement (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01–1.23, P < .05). In addition, the serious adverse events rate (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.88, P < .05) of COVID-19 medicine is lower than control group.Conclusion:The results indicated antiviral medicine was potential specific medicine for COVID-19 treatment by improving clinical symptoms, but it failed to increase the discharge rate and reduce mortality. Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and ACEI/ARB had no significant effect on treatment of COVID-19, thus they were not recommended for routine medication. Moreover, more trials are needed to find effective drugs to lower the mortality of COVID-19 patients.     

The Cox model of predicting mortality among melioidosis patients in Northern Malaysia: A retrospective study

Melioidosis is an infectious disease that is initiated by a bacteria recognized as Burkholderia pseudomallei. Despite the high fatality rate from melioidosis, there is a minimal published study about the disease in Malaysia.This study aimed to identify the prognostic factors of mortality among melioidosis patients in northern Malaysia.All inpatient patients who were admitted to Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah, Kedah and Hospital Tuanku Fauziah, Perlis with culture-confirmed melioidosis during the period 2014 to 2017 were included in the study. The study retrospectively collected 510 melioidosis patients from the Melioidosis Registry. Hazard ratio (HR) used in advanced multiple Cox regression was used to obtain the final model of prognostic factors of melioidosis. The analysis was performed using STATA/SE 14.0 for Windows software.From the results, among the admitted patients, 50.1% died at the hospital. The mean age for those who died was 55 years old, and they were mostly male. The most common underlying disease was diabetes mellitus (69.8%), followed by hypertension (32.7%). The majority of cases (86.8%) were bacteremic. The final Cox model identified 5 prognostic factors of mortality among melioidosis patients. The factors were diabetes mellitus, type of melioidosis, platelet count, white blood cell count, and urea value. The results showed that bacteremic melioidosis increased the risk of dying by 3.47 (HR: 3.47, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.67–7.23, P = .001) compared to non-bacteremic melioidosis. Based on the blood investigations, the adjusted HRs from the final model showed that all 3 blood investigations were included as the prognostic factors for the disease (low platelet: HR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.22–2.54, P = .003; high white blood cell: HR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.06–2.11, P = .023; high urea: HR = 2.92, 95% CI: 1.76–4.85, P < .001; and low level of urea: HR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.69–4.29, P < .001). By contrast, melioidosis patients with diabetic had 30.0% lower risk of dying from melioidosis compared to those with non-diabetic (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52–0.94, P = .016).Identifying the prognostic factors of mortality in patients with melioidosis allows a guideline of early management in these patients, which may improve patient''s survival.     

Risk factors associated with the need for oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19

Respiratory failure is the major cause of death in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Data on factors affecting the need for oxygen therapy in early-stage COVID-19 are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with the need for oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19.This is a retrospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized between February 27 and June 28, 2020, in South Korea. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with the need for oxygen therapy.Of the 265 patients included in the study, 26 (9.8%) received oxygen therapy, and 7 of these patients (29.2%) were transferred to a step-up facility, and 3 (11.5%) died. The median age of all patients was 46 years (IQR, 30–60 years), and the median modified early warning score at admission was 1 (IQR, 1–2). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, being a current smoker (odds ratio [OR] 7.641, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.686–34.630, P = .008), heart rate (OR 1.053, 95% CI 1.010–1.097, P = .014), aspartate aminotransferase values (OR 1.049, 95% CI 1.008–1.092, P = .020), blood urea nitrogen levels (OR 1.171, 95% CI 1.073–1.278, P < .001), and chest radiographic findings (OR 3.173, 95% CI 1.870–5.382, P < .001) were associated with oxygen therapy.In patients with less severe COVID-19, the need for oxygen therapy is affected by smoking and elevated values of aspartate aminotransferase and blood urea nitrogen. Further research is warranted on the risk factors for deterioration in COVID-19 to efficiently allocate medical resources.     

The effect of coagulation factors in 2019 novel coronavirus patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:The role of coagulation dysfunction in Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is inconsistent. We aimed to explore the impact of coagulation dysfunction amongst patients with COVID-19.Methods:We searched PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases from December 1, 2019 to April 27, 2020 following Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Data about coagulation (Platelets, PT, APTT, fibrin, fibrinogen degradation products, D-dimer), prevalence of coagulation dysfunction and mortality were extracted. Meta regression was used to explore the heterogeneity.Results:Sixteen observational studies were included, comprising 2, 139 patients with confirmed COVID-19. More severe COVID-19 cases tended to have higher mean D-dimer (SMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.03, P < .001). The similar pattern occurred with PT and fibrin, with a contrary trend for PLTs. Coagulation dysfunction was more frequent in severe cases compared to less severe (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.67, P < .001). Higher mortality was associated with COVID-19-related coagulopathy (RR 10.86, 2.86 to 41.24, P < .001). Prevalence of ARDS was increased in more severe patients than less severe cases (RR 16.52, 11.27 to 24.22, P < .001). PT, fibrin and D-dimer levels elevated significantly in non-survivors during hospitalization.Conclusion:Presence of coagulation dysfunction might be associated with COVID-19 severity, and coagulopathy might be associated with mortality. Coagulation markers including PT, fibrin and D-dimer may imply the progression of COVID-19. This illuminates the necessity of effectively monitoring coagulation function for preventing COVID-19-related coagulopathy, especially in severe patients. For the obvious heterogeneity, the quality of the evidence is compromised. Future rigorous randomized controlled trials that assess the correlation between coagulation and COVID-19 are needed.Trial registration:PROSPERO (CRD42020183514).     

Corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background:Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection.Results:A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections.Conclusion:Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.     

Effectiveness of tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalized adults COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Since December 2019, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread worldwide, leading to a global health threat. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to March 10, 2021 for randomized controlled trials in which patients were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab plus usual care or usual care alone in hospitalized adults with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool studies. All data analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.4.Results:Eleven studies with 6579 patients were included in our meta-analysis, of which 3406 and 3173 were assigned to tocilizumab and control groups, respectively. Tocilizumab significantly reduced the 28 to 30-day mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.99, P = .04), incidence of mechanical ventilation (MV) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, P < .001), composite outcome of MV or death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, P < .001), time-to-hospital discharge (hazard ratio = 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.45, P < .001), intensive care unit admission (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88, P = .006), serious infection (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.94, P = .02), and number of serious adverse events (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, P = .004).Conclusion:Tocilizumab reduced short-term mortality, incidence of MV, composite outcome of death or MV, intensive care unit admission, serious infection, serious adverse events, and time-to-hospital discharge in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Further studies are required to determine the optimal dose.     

Corrected QT interval in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: Focus on drugs therapy

Corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation has been associated with poor patient prognosis. In this study, we assessed the effects of different drugs and cardiac injury on QTc interval prolongation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).The study cohort consisted of 395 confirmed COVID-19 cases from the Wuhan Union Hospital West Campus. All hospitalized patients were treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), quinolones, interferon, Arbidol, or Qingfei Paidu decoction (QPD) and received at least 1 electrocardiogram after drug administration.Fifty one (12.9%) patients exhibited QTc prolongation (QTc ≥ 470 ms). QTc interval prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality (both P < .001). Administration of CQ/HCQ (odds ratio [OR], 2.759; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.318–5.775; P = .007), LPV/r (OR, 2.342; 95% CI, 1.152–4.760; P = .019), and quinolones (OR, 2.268; 95% CI, 1.171–4.392; P = .015) increased the risk of QTc prolongation. In contrast, the administration of Arbidol, interferon, or QPD did not increase the risk of QTc prolongation. Notably, patients treated with QPD had a shorter QTc duration than those without QPD treatment (412.10 [384.39–433.77] vs 420.86 [388.19–459.58]; P = .042). The QTc interval was positively correlated with the levels of cardiac biomarkers (creatine kinase-MB fraction [rho = 0.14, P = .016], high-sensitivity troponin I [rho = .22, P < .001], and B-type natriuretic peptide [rho = 0.27, P < .001]).In conclusion, QTc prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. The risk of QTc prolongation was higher in patients receiving CQ/HCQ, LPV/r, and quinolones. QPD had less significant effects on QTc prolongation than other antiviral agents.     

Association between the peripheral blood eosinophil counts and COVID-19: A meta-analysis

Background:The conclusions about the relationship between eosinophil counts and the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were controversial, so we updated the evidences and reassessed it.Methods:We searched the PubMed, Cochrane library, Excerpta Medica Database, and Web of Science to compare the eosinophil counts about non-severe disease group (mild pneumonia, moderate pneumonia, non-critical disease and recovery group) and severe disease group (severe pneumonia, critical pneumonia, critical disease and death group) in COVID-19.Results:A total of 1228 patients from 10 studies were included. Compared with non-severe group, severe group had strikingly lower average eosinophil counts (SMD 0.65, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.29–1.01; P < .001). The result of subgroup analysis of different countries showed SMD 0.66, 95% CI 0.26–1.06; P < .001. Another subgroup analysis between mild-moderate pneumonia versus severe-critical pneumonia showed SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.25–1.13; P < .001, and no significant risk of publication bias (Begg test 0.063 and Egger test 0.057) in this subgroup. The heterogeneity was substantial, but the sensitivity analyses showed no significant change when individual study was excluded, which suggested the crediblity and stablity of our results.Conclusions:The eosinophil counts had important value as an indicator of severity in patients with COVID-19.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42020205497.     

LKB1 expression and the prognosis of lung cancer: A meta-analysis

Background:In the past few decades, many lines of evidence implicate the importance of liver kinase B1 (LKB1) as a tumor suppressor gene in the development and progression of solid tumours. However, the prognostic and clinicopathological value of LKB1 in patients with lung cancer are controversial. This article aimed to investigate the latest evidence on this question.Methods:A systematic literature searched in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus until September 20, 2020. The association between overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), clinicopathological features and LKB1 were analysed by meta-analysis.Results:Eleven studies including 1507 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that low LKB1 expression was significantly associated with poor overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.07–2.60, P = .024) in lung cancer. However, no association was found between LKB1 expression and DFS/PFS (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.70–2.39, P = .410). Pooled results showed that low LKB1 expression was associated with histological differentiation (poor vs moderate or well, OR = 4.135, 95% CI:2.524–6.774, P < .001), nodal metastasis (absent vs present, OR = 0.503, 95% CI: 0.303–0.835, P = .008) and smoking (yes vs no, OR = 1.765, 95% CI: 1.120–2.782, P = .014).Conclusion:These results suggest that low expression of LKB1 can be considered as a unfavorable prognostic biomarker for human lung cancer, which should be further researched.     

No evidence of tocilizumab treatment efficacy for severe to critical SARS-CoV2 infected patients: Results from a retrospective controlled multicenter study

To assess tocilizumab (TCZ) efficacy associated to standard of care (SOC) compared to SOC alone in severe coronavirus associated disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. In a matched case-control study from 3 French Hospital COVID-19 Departments, 27 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with TCZ and SOC were matched for baseline epidemiological and clinical features and compared to 27 severe COVID-19 patients treated with SOC alone. Baseline characteristics of the study population were comparable between groups. Eleven patients (20%) died. TCZ was not associated with clinical improvement as compared to SOC regarding oxygen-free status (44% vs 63%) and death (18.5% vs 22%), despite a higher decrease of the C-reactive protein at Day 7 (10.7 vs 52 mg/L; P < 10⁻³). Compared to the 43 patients alive at the end-of follow-up, patients who died were older (78 vs 64 years; P < 10⁻³), with 82% of them older than 72 years vs only 23% of live patients (P < 10⁻³). Age (OR = 1.15; 95%CI = 1.04–1.3; P = .008) and age over 72 years (OR) = 14.85; 95%CI = 2.7–80; P = .002) were independently associated with mortality. TCZ in addition to SOC for severe COVID-19 patients did not reduce mortality, subsequent need for invasive mechanical ventilation nor did it shorten the time of oxygen support, despite better control of the inflammatory response. More powerful and randomized controlled trials are warranted to determine if TCZ is effective in the management of COVID-19.     

Efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitor versus chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer: A meta-analysis

Background:This meta-analysis was performed to compare efficacy and tolerability between antiprogrammed cell death (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) + anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) treatment and chemotherapy in advanced lung cancer.Methods:Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases were searched for potential articles. The fixed-effect model or random-effect model was adopted for pooled analysis based on the I² and P-value.Results:Six articles with 1338 patients were identified and subjected to meta-analysis. Compared with chemotherapy, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 treatment could significantly improve the overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95%confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–0.84, P = .21) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.71–0.83, P = .30) of advanced lung cancer patients. Moreover, there was no obvious difference in the incidence of 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs) serious adverse reactions (HR = 1.35, 95%CI: 0.66–2.74, P < .00001) between the 2 treatment groups, but the incidence rates of AEs leading to discontinuation (HR = 2.56, 95%CI: 1.53–4.30, P < .00001) and AEs leading to death (HR = 2.10, 95%CI: 1.21–3.63, P = .20) were higher. Furthermore, no remarkable differences in objective response rate (HR = 1.31, 95%CI: 0.97–1.77, P = .02) were observed between the 2 groups.Conclusion:Our meta-analysis revealed that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus CTLA-4 inhibitor could markedly improve the endpoint outcomes of patients compared with chemotherapy alone, and did not significantly increase the serious adverse reactions. Thus, it can serve as a new treatment strategy for advanced lung cancer.     

High expression of HOXB7 is an unfavorable prognostic factor for solid malignancies: A meta-analysis

Background:HOXB7 is abnormally expressed in a variety of tumors, but its prognostic value remains unclear due to sample size limitation and outcome inconsistency in previous studies. This meta-analysis was performed to explore the effect of HOXB7 expression on prognoses and clinicopathological factors in range of the whole solid tumors.Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify included studies. Hazard ratios (HR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and clinicopathological factors were extracted. Subgroup analyses were performed according to histopathological type, tumor occurrence systems, and HOXB7 detection methods.Results:A total of 3430 solid tumors patients from 20 studies (21 cohorts) were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that high HOXB7 expression was significantly associated with worse survival (overall survival: HR = 1.98, 95%CI: 1.74–2.26, P < .001 and disease-free survival: HR = 1.59, 95%CI: 1.21–2.09, P = .001), more advanced tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage (odds ratio [OR] = 2.14, 95%CI: 1.68–2.73, P < .001), positive lymph node metastasis (OR = 2.16, 95%CI: 1.74–2.70, P < .001), more distant metastasis (OR = 1.63, 95%CI: 1.01–2.63, P = .048), poorer differentiation (OR = 1.48, 95%CI: 1.14–1.91, P = .003), and higher Ki-67 expression (OR = 2.53, 95%CI: 1.68–3.84, P < .001). Subgroup analysis showed that survival of patients with HOXB7 high expression was worse in either squamous cell carcinomas or non-squamous cell carcinomas, digestive tumors or non-digestive tumors, and protein level or mRNA level.Conclusion:High HOXB7 expression might be a valuable biomarker of poor prognosis for solid tumors. HOXB7 promotes tumor proliferation and metastasis, and is associated with poorer differentiation, more advanced stage, even the chemotherapy resistance, suggesting that HOXB7 is a potential therapeutic target for solid tumors.     

Prognostic factors of patients after liver cancer surgery: Based on Surveillance,Epidemiology, and End Results database

This study aimed to investigate the prognostic factors of patients after liver cancer surgery and evaluate the predictive power of nomogram. Liver cancer patients with the history of surgery in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 2000 and 2016 were preliminary retrieved. Patients were divided into the survival group (n = 2120, survival ≥5 years) and the death group (n = 2615, survival < 5 years). Single-factor and multi-factor Cox regression were used for analyzing the risk factors of death in patients with liver cancer after surgery. Compared with single patients, married status was the protective factor for death in patients undergoing liver cancer surgery (HR = 0.757, 95%CI: 0.685–0.837, P < .001); the risk of death in Afro-Americans (HR = 1.300, 95%CI: 1.166–1.449, P < .001) was higher than that in Caucasians, while the occurrence of death in Asians (HR = 0.821, 95%CI: 0.1754–0.895, P < .0012) was lower; female patients had a lower incidence of death (HR = 0.875, 95%CI: 0.809–0.947, P < .001); grade II (HR = 1.167, 95%CI: 1.080–1.262, P < .001), III (HR = 1.580, 95%CI: 1.433–1.744, P < .001), and IV (HR = 1.419, 95%CI: 1.145–1.758, P = 0.001) were the risk factors for death in patients with liver cancer. The prognostic factors of liver cancer patients after surgery include the marital status, race, gender, age, grade of cancer and tumor size. The nomogram with good predictive ability can provide the prediction of 5-year survival for clinical development.     

The prognostic value of lncRNA AGAP2-AS1 in cancer patients: A meta-analysis

Background:ArfGAP with GTPase domain, Ankyrin repeat and PH domain 2 Antisense 1 (AGAP2-AS1) is a promising long noncoding RNA that may possess prognostic value for different types of tumors. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the prognostic value of long noncoding RNA AGAP2-AS1 in cancer patients.Methods:A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, CNKI, Weipu, and Wanfang electronic databases were carried out in this meta-analysis. Synthetic hazard ratios (HRs) or odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained to determine the prognostic and clinicopathological significance of AGAP2-AS1 expression in tumors.Results:The final meta-analysis included 10 studies that contained 948 patients. The pooled results provided evidence that AGAP2-AS1 overexpression predicted reduced overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.49–2.09, P < .00001), disease-free survival (HR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.40–2.41, P < .0001), and progression-free survival (HR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.01–3.33, P = .04) and for various cancers. Additionally, the AGAP2-AS1 overexpression was concerned with lymph node metastasis (positive vs negative, OR = 2.95, 95% CI: 1.96–4.45, P < .00001), advanced tumor node metastasis stage (III/IV vs I/II, OR = 3.73, 95% CI: 2.71–5.13, P < .00001), and tumor size (larger vs smaller, OR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.24–4.18, P = .008). Besides, data from gene expression profiling interactive analysis dataset verified the results in our meta-analysis. The results showed that the expression level of AGAP2-AS1 was higher in most tumor tissues than in the corresponding normal tissues and was linked to poor OS and disease-free survival.Conclusions:Our results indicated that AGAP2-AS1 overexpression was closely correlated with shorter OS in multiple cancer types, suggesting that AGAP2-AS1 might function as a promising predictor for clinical outcomes in cancer.     

Prognostic significance of ANO1 expression in cancers

Background:Anoctamin-1 (ANO1) plays a pivotal role in cancer progression. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the potential prognostic role of ANO1 in cancers.Methods:A total of 1760 patients from 7 eligible studies were included into the analysis. Pooled hazard ratios or odds ratios were extracted and calculated with a random-effects model, and analyses of heterogeneity bias were conducted.Results:Our results showed that over expression of ANO1 was significantly correlated with poor overall survival in all cancers (HR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.19–1.92; P = .0006). Subgroup analysis indicated that there was a significant association between over expression of ANO1 and poor prognosis breast cancer (HR = 3.24; 95% CI: 1.74–6.04), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.00–1.30), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.07–3.50), gastric cancer (HR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.12–2.34) and colorectal cancer (HR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.03–1.85). In addition, over expression of ANO1 was not associated with TNM stage, histological grade, lymph node metastasis, tumor size, age and gender. However, ANO1 was significantly associated with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, but not associated with progesterone receptor or estrogen receptor in breast cancer.Conclusions:Our results indicate that ANO1 can be a predictive factor for prognosis of cancer.     

Pooled-analysis of efficacy and safety of minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Background:This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with renal and upper ureteric stones.Methods:We conducted a pooled analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The eligible RCTs were selected from the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The reference lists of retrieved studies were also investigated.Results:Our analysis included 10 RCTs with 1612 patients. Pooled data from 10 RCTs revealed the following: stone-free rate (odds ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.12,1.88], P = .004), operative time (mean difference [MD]  = 4.10, 95% CI [–1.37,9.56], P = .14), length of hospital stay (MD = –15.31, 95% CI [–29.43,–1.19], P = .03), hemoglobin decrease (MD = –0.86, 95% CI [–1.19,–0.53], P < .00001), postoperative fever (MD = 0.83, 95% CI [0.49,1.40], P = .49), and urine leakage (MD = 0.59, 95% CI [0.25,1.37], P = .22). Besides, we performed sub-group analysis based on vacuum suction effect and multiple kidney stones. For vacuum suction effect, it revealed the following: stone-free rate in vacuum suction group (P = .007) and in non-vacuum suction group (P = .19). Operative time in vacuum suction group (P = .89), non-vacuum suction group (P = .16). Postoperative fever in vacuum suction group (P = .49), non-vacuum suction group (P = .85).Conclusion:This pooled analysis indicated that MPCNL was a safe and effective method for treating renal stones compared with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Besides, the vacuum suction effect in MPCNL played a more important role. When it comes to multiple or staghorn stones, the longer operative time in MPCNL could not be ignored.