Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24206575›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2013

Systematic review and meta-analysis of tumor biomarkers in predicting prognosis in esophageal cancer.

Meilan Chen, Jizheng Huang, Zhenli Zhu, Jun Zhang, Ke Li

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 60 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. The prognostic significance of p53 expression in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2015
    Pooled it
  13. The prognostic role of Ki-67/MIB-1 in cervical cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2015
    Pooled it
  14. Clinicopathologic and prognostic significance of p21 (Cip1/Waf1) expression in bladder cancer.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2015
    Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Effect of Ionizing Radiation on the Transcript Variants Expression of p21 Gene.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Meilan Chen
Jizheng Huang
Zhenli Zhu
Jun Zhang
Ke LiDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Shantou University Medical College, No,22 Xinling Road, Shantou, Guangdong 515041, China. kli@stu.edu.cn.
Shantou University Medical College · CNShantou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEsophageal cancer (EC) is a frequently occurring cancer with poor prognosis despite combined therapeutic strategies. Many biomarkers have been proposed as predictors of adverse events. We sought to assess the prognostic value of biomarkers in predicting the overall survival of esophageal cancer and to help guide personalized cancer treatment to give patients the best chance at remission.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to summarize evidence for the discriminatory ability of prognostic biomarkers for esophageal cancer. Relevant literature was identified using the PubMed database on April 11, 2012, and conformed to the REMARK criteria. The primary endpoint was overall survival and data were synthesized with hazard ratios (HRs).

resultsWe included 109 studies, exploring 13 different biomarkers, which were subjected to quantitative meta-analysis. Promising markers that emerged for the prediction of overall survival in esophageal squamous cell cancer included VEGF (18 eligible studies, n=1476, HR=1.85, 95% CI, 1.55-2.21), cyclin D1 (12 eligible studies, n=1476, HR=1.82, 95% CI, 1.50-2.20), Ki-67 (3 eligible studies, n=308, HR=1.11, 95% CI, 0.70-1.78) and squamous cell carcinoma antigen (5 eligible studies, n=700, HR=1.28, 95% CI, 0.97-1.69); prognostic markers for esophageal adenocarcinoma included COX-2 (2 eligible studies, n=235, HR=3.06, 95% CI, 2.01-4.65) and HER-2 (3 eligible studies, n=291, HR=2.15, 95% CI, 1.39-3.33); prognostic markers for uncategorized ECs included p21 (9 eligible studies, n=858, HR=1.27, 95% CI, 0.75-2.16), p53 (31 eligible studies, n=2851, HR=1.34, 95% CI, 1.21-1.48), CRP (8 eligible studies, n=1382, HR=2.65, 95% CI, 1.64-4.27) and hemoglobin (5 eligible studies, n=544, HR=0.91, 95% CI, 0.83-1.00).

conclusionsAlthough some modest bias cannot be excluded, this review supports the involvement of biomarkers to be associated with EC overall survival.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEsophageal NeoplasmsHumansPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsPublication BiasBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID24206575
PMCPMC3828582
OpenAlexW2051296967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.