4.5 Article

Prognostic value of CD44v6 expression in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Journal

ONCOTARGETS AND THERAPY
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages 5451-5457

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S156101

Keywords

CD44v6; breast cancer; prognosis; metastasis; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. Shanghai Tongren Hospital [TRYJ201514]
  2. Project of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning [20174Y0231]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672335]
  4. Shanghai Jiaotong University medical professionals cross fund [YG2016ZD10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The prognostic value and clinical significance of CD44 variant isoform v6 (CD44v6) in breast cancer remains controversial. Our study aimed to generalize the correlation between CD44v6 expression and clinicopathological features and prognosis in breast cancer by using a meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of relevant literature from PubMed, Cochrane Database:, and EMBASE database that were published before January 2018. The pooled ORs and HRs with 95% CIs were used to estimate the effects. Results: Thirteen articles comprising 1,458 patients were included for analysis. The results revealed that CD44v6 expression was associated with histological grade (overall: OR=1.56, 95% CI [1.06, 2.29], P=0.023; Asian: OR=1.78, 95% CI [1.12, 2.85], P=0.016) and lymph node metastasis (overall: OR=1.96, 95% CI [1.01, 3.78], P=0.046; Asian: OR=2.11, 95% CI [1.00, 4.44], P=0.049). CD44v6 expression was significantly associated with poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer (overall survival: overall: HR=1.55, 95% CI [1.09, 2.22], P=0.015; Asian: HR=2.22, 95% CI [1.34, 3.68], P=0.002). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that CD44v6 is significantly associated with poor prognosis, histological grade, and lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients, especially among Asian patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available