SynthesisInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2014
Monocyte chemotactic protein-1 expression as a prognosic biomarker in patients with solid tumor: a meta analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chemokine-chemokine receptor axis: Emerging immunotherapeutic paradigms for solid tumor microenvironment reprogramming.Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
- Bidirectional Mendelian randomization identifies differential causal associations between inflammatory cytokines and lung cancer subtypes.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- eEF2K is a poor prognostic factor and novel molecular target in pancreatic cancer: regulating tumor growth and progression via the tumor microenvironment.Cell death & disease · 2025Article
- Impact of high hydrostatic pressure on the cytokine profile and head and neck cancer cell behavior: implications for oncological safety.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Sex-related differences in serum biomarker levels predict the activity and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer patients.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Suppression of MCP-1, IFN-γ and IL-6 production of HNSCCFrontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- The Value of CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL3, and CXCL8 as Potential Prognosis Markers in Cervical Cancer: Evidence of E6/E7 from HPV16 and 18 in Chemokines Regulation.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- MCP-1 expression in breast cancer and its association with distant relapse.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Targeting Inflammation in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer through Drug Repurposing.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- CDK5RAP3 acts as a tumour suppressor in gastric cancer through the infiltration and polarization of tumour-associated macrophages.Cancer gene therapy · 2023Article
- CC Chemokine Receptor 4 (CCR4) as a Possible New Target for Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Iterative principal component analysis method for improvised classification of breast cancer disease using blood sample analysis.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Article
- CCR2-targeted micelles for anti-cancer peptide delivery and immune stimulation.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2021Article
- IL-1β promotes cervical cancer through activating NF-κB/CCL-2.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2021Article
- The Role of Tumor Inflammatory Microenvironment in Lung Cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- CC Chemokines in a Tumor: A Review of Pro-Cancer and Anti-Cancer Properties of the Ligands of Receptors CCR1, CCR2, CCR3, and CCR4.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Eukaryotic elongation factor-2 kinase (eEF2K) signaling in tumor and microenvironment as a novel molecular target.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2020Review
- Article
- Human Tumor-Infiltrating Myeloid Cells: Phenotypic and Functional Diversity.Frontiers in immunology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA great deal of studies have been performed on the prognostic value of monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1) in solid tumors in recent years. However, no consistent outcomes are reported. Therefore, the prognostic value of MCP-1 still remains controversial in patients with solid tumors. Here we aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of MCP-1 expression for patients with solid tumors.
methodsComprehensive literature was selected from PUBMED and EMBASE and clinical studies which reported analysis of survival data about MCP-1 in solid tumors were included. Stata 11.0 was used for performing a meta-analysis on evaluating the relation between MCP-1 and clinical staging, overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS).
resultsEleven studies with a total of 1324 patients with solid tumors were included into our meta-analysis. The result showed that high concentration of MCP-1 was related to a worse OS (HR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.32-2.88). The subgroup analysis on different location of tumors showed that high concentration of MCP-1 meant bad prognosis in patients with digestive cancer (HR = 2.66, 95% CI 1.44-4.91) and urogenital cancer (HR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.61-3.10), even head and neck cancer (HR = 1.99, 95% CI 0.95-4.18) other than respiratory cancer (HR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.39-3.11). Another subgroup analysed on different sites of cancer and indicated a poor prognosis on adenocarcinoma (HR = 2.10, 95% CI 1.63-2.69).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that MCP-1 can be regarded as a poor prognostic maker for solid tumors and may represent important new therapeutic targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25120764PMC4128999W1813674257What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.