SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2022
Lack of relationship between PROX1 expression and clinicopathological parameters and prognosis in gastric cancer patients: a meta-analysis and TCGA analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relationship between PROX1 expression and clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis in patients with gastric cancer (GC) remain controversial. The aim of this study is to determine the clinicopathological and prognostic significance of PROX1 expression in patients with GC.
methodsA systematic literature search and meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluated the relationship between PROX1 expression and clinicopathological characteristics and overall survival (OS) of GC patients. Additionally, the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) datasets were utilized to examine the relationship between PROX1 expression and clinicopathological significance and OS in GC patients.
resultsA total of 8 studies pooling 1289 GC patients were included in the assessment. In GC patients, PROX1 expression was not related to gender (OR: 1.234, 95% CI 0.958-1.590, P = 0.104), depth of tumor invasion (OR: 0.742, 95% CI 0.428-1.287, P = 0.289), lymph node metastasis (OR: 2.161, 95% CI 0.808-5.779, P = 0.125), TNM stage (OR: 1.324, 95% CI 0.572-3.066, P = 0.513), tumor size (OR: 0.889, 95% CI 0.502-1.576, P = 0.687), distant metastasis (OR: 1.096, 95% CI 0.470-2.555, P = 0.763). In addition, we also found that PROX1 expression was not associated with 1-year OS (OR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.631-1.306, P = 0.602), 3-year OS (OR: 1.234, 95% CI 0.482-3.160, P = 0.661) and 5-year OS (OR: 0.853, 95% CI 0.266-2.736, P = 0.790). According to TCGA, in comparison with high and low PROX1 expression in GC patients, the OS did not differ statistically (p = 0.119).
conclusionThe expression of PROX1 was shown to lack a significant relationship to gender, TNM stage, depth of invasion, tumor size, stage, distant metastasis, or lymph node metastasis in statistically. The expression of PROX1 was not related to OS and it failed to be a meaningful biomarker to prevent and diagnose GC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.