4.1 Article

Prognostic Role of C-reactive Protein in Gastric Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Journal

ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
Volume 14, Issue 10, Pages 5735-5740

Publisher

ASIAN PACIFIC ORGANIZATION CANCER PREVENTION
DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.10.5735

Keywords

C-reactive protein; gastric carcinoma; prognosis; meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A number of studies have investigated the association between increased pretreatment serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and the prognosis of gastric cancer. However, due to the inconsistent results, whether the serum CRP level can be a prognostic factor in primary gastric cancer remains controversial. Methods: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant high-quality reports. A meta-analysis was carried out using the included studies to assess the association between pretreatment serum CRP level and overall survival (OS) in patients with gastric cancer. Correlation analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between serum CRP and tumor characteristics such as tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage and recurrence. Results: Twelve reports involving 2,597 patients with gastric cancer were included. Primary meta-analysis indicated a significant association between elevated CRP level and poor OS (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.56-2.00). Subgroup analyses showed no single factor could alter the primary results when we divided the included studies by number of patients, max follow-up period, TNM stage, treatment and cut-off value. Correlation analyses showed that serum CRP level was significantly related to TNM stage (OR 2.96, 95% CI 2.22-3.93) and tumor recurrence (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.21-2.71). Conclusions: We demonstrated that increased pretreatment serum CRP level (>= 10mg/L) was significantly associated with poor prognosis in gastric cancer patients, either in early or advanced stages.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available