Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35116293›Full record

ArticleTranslational cancer research2021

The prognostic value of homeobox A9 (HOXA9) methylation in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hai Cai, Zhi-Bin Ke, Ru-Nan Dong, Hang Chen, Fei Lin, Wen-Cai Zheng, Shao-Hao Chen, Jun-Ming Zhu, Shao-Ming Chen, Qing-Shui Zheng and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Hypermethylation ofCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hai Cai *Department of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Zhi-Bin Ke *Department of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Ru-Nan Dong *Department of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Hang Chen *Department of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Fei LinDepartment of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Wen-Cai ZhengDepartment of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Shao-Hao ChenDepartment of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Jun-Ming ZhuDepartment of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Shao-Ming ChenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Qing-Shui ZhengDepartment of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Yong WeiDepartment of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Xue-Yi XueDepartment of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Ning XuDepartment of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Fujian Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prognosis of homeobox A9 (HOXA9) methylation have been assessed in a variety of cancers; nevertheless, the results remain undetermined due to discrete outcome and the limitations of small sample size. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the effect of HOXA9 methylation on the prognostic outcomes of patients with solid tumors.

methodsQualified studies were verified by searching PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database and Web of Science until September, 2020. Clinicopathological factors and hazard ratio (HR) of 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were selected. Subgroup analysis including carcinoma category, analysis method and sample size were adopted.

resultsIn the meta-analysis 1,031 patients with solid carcinoma from 7 eligible investigations were involved. Among human cancer we discovered that the high HOXA9 methylation level was negative correlative with overall survival (OS) (HR =2.36; 95% CI: 1.70-3.26). In the subgroup analysis, we found HOXA9 methylation over-expression had statistical significance with poorer OS in lung cancer patients (HR =3.08, 95% CI: 1.70-5.55, P=0.002) and non-lung cancer (HR =2.10, 95% CI: 1.42-3.10, P=0.0002). Similar result was found in sample size. Greater than or equal to 100 (HR =2.31, 95% CI: 1.54-3.45, P<0.0001) and less than 100 (HR =2.45, 95% CI: 1.42-4.23, P=0.001). DISCUSSION: HOXA9 methylation has a significantly estimable biomarker of predicting poor prognosis and a potential target for therapy in solid malignant carcinoma from our meta-analysis.

Indexed as

biomarkerHomeobox A9 methylation (HOXA9 methylation)meta-analysisprognosissolid tumors

Identifiers

PMID35116293
PMCPMC8797409
OpenAlexW3199507125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.