Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28751758›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2017

Prognostic biomarkers for oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alhadi Almangush, Ilkka Heikkinen, Antti A Mäkitie, Ricardo D Coletta, Esa Läärä, Ilmo Leivo, Tuula Salo

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
13.3field-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

126 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 216 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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. Pooled it
  13. The prognostic significance of E-cadherin expression in laryngeal squamous-cell carcinoma: a systematic review.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2018
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Alhadi AlmangushDepartment of Pathology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ilkka HeikkinenDepartment of Pathology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Antti A MäkitieDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ricardo D ColettaDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, School of Dentistry, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Esa LääräDepartment of Mathematical Sciences and Statistics, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Ilmo LeivoDepartment of Pathology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Tuula SaloDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FIHelsinki University Hospital · FIOulu University Hospital · FIUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversity of Oulu · FIUniversity of Turku · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying informative prognostic biomarkers for oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (OTSCC) is of great importance in order to better predict tumour behaviour and to guide treatment planning. Here, we summarise existing evidence regarding immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers for OTSCC.

methodsA systematic search of the literature was performed using the databases of Scopus, Ovid Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. All studies which had investigated the prognostic significance of immunohistochemical biomarkers in OTSCC during the period from 1985 to 2015 were retrieved. For the five most often evaluated biomarkers a random-effects meta-analysis on overall survival was performed, including those studies that provided the necessary statistical results.

resultsA total of 174 studies conducted during the last three decades were found, and in these 184 biomarkers were evaluated for the prognostication of OTSCC. The five biomarkers most frequently assessed were p53, Ki-67, p16, VEGFs and cyclin D1. In the meta-analyses, the most promising results of the prognostic power for OTSCC were obtained for cyclin D1. For studies of VEGF A and C the results were equivocal, but the pooled analysis of VEGF A separately showed it to be a useful prognosticator for OTSCC. There was no sufficient evidence to support p53, Ki-67 and p16 as prognostic biomarkers for OTSCC. Limitations in the quality of the published studies (e.g., small cohorts, lack of compliance with REMARK guidelines) are widespread.

conclusionsNumerous biomarkers have been presented as useful prognosticators for OTSCC, but the quality of the conduct and reporting of original studies is overall unsatisfactory which does not allow reliable conclusions. The value of two biomarkers (VEGF-A and cyclin D1) should be validated in a multicentre study setting following REMARK guidelines.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Squamous CellCyclin D1Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16HumansKi-67 AntigenPrognosisTongue NeoplasmsTumor Suppressor Protein p53Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor ABiomarkers, TumorCDKN2A protein, humanCyclin D1Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16Ki-67 AntigenTumor Suppressor Protein p53Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID28751758
PMCPMC5589992
OpenAlexW2741450739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.