SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2025
Clinicopathologic relevance of EpCAM and CD44 in pancreatic cancer: insights from a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aptamer-Targeted PrPC Drives Colorectal Cancer Metastasis via a LYN-STAT3 Complex and Enables Liquid Biopsy Detection.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Hepatitis C virus core promotes hepatic cancer stem cell formation via β-catenin-mediated EpCAM upregulation.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that EpCAM and CD44 could serve as diagnosis or prognosis markers in pancreatic cancer (PC). In this meta-analysis, we evaluated their associations with clinicopathologic features. Specifically, we compared immunohistochemical-positive and -negative PC patients for T stage (T3-T4 vs. T1-T2), N stage (N1 vs. N0), M stage (M1 vs. M0), tumor grade (well/moderately vs. poorly differentiated), UICC Stage (III, IV vs. I, II), and overall survival (OS). The diagnostic meta-analysis was performed analysing the pooled sensitivity and specificity and evaluating overall accuracy to indicate the diagnostic efficacy of the markers. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO website under the registration number of CRD42024568390. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science was conducted on January 30th, 2025. The statistical analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.4 software and R language (R package Mada and Metafor). The quality of the studies included was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the QUADAS-2 tool. Data from relevant studies were independently screened and extracted using Rayyan, by at least two authors. A total of 19 studies were eligible (9 studies for EpCAM, 9 studies for CD44, and 2 studies for both EpCAM and CD44), comprising a total of 1370 patients. The diagnostic meta-analysis demonstrated moderate accuracy for EpCAM (AUC, 95% CI of 0.802, 0.69-0.96). A statistically significant association was found for CD44 expression and T-status (OR = 2.04, 95%CI = 1.18-3.51), or N-stage (OR = 2.68, 95%CI = 1.86-3.85), or TNM stage (OR = 3.79, 95%CI = 2.14-6.71). CD44v6 overexpression predicted worse OS (HR = 2.33, p < 0.00001), while EpCAM + CD44 + co-expression was prognostic (HR = 2.02, p = 0.02). Heterogeneity was not observed among the studies included, but further research is warranted to better understand the clinical implications of these markers' positivity in PC diagnosis and prognosis.
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.