4.5 Review

Prognostic and clinicopathological value of FoxM1 expression in colorectal cancer A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 97, 期 52, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013899

关键词

colorectal cancer; FoxM1; meta-analysis; prognosis; systematic review

资金

  1. Project of Nature Science Foundation of China [81672348]
  2. National Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China [BK2016255]
  3. Special Clinical Research Fund from Wu JiePing Medical Foundation [320.6750.17276]
  4. Six Major Talent Peak Project of Jiangsu Province of China [2015-WSW-014]
  5. Six One Project for Advanced Medical Talent of Jiangsu Province of China [LGY2016031]
  6. Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent of China [QNRC2016735]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The study aims to assess the relationship between FoxM1 expression and clinicopathological parameters and prognosis of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) by summarizing the studies included. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and other sources were searched for relative studies. Odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI) were used to assess association between FoxM1 expression and clinical parameters and prognosis of CRC patients. Results: Eight studies were included in the final analysis, with 1149 CRC patients. The outcome revealed that expression of FoxM1 was associated with lymph node metastasis (OR=0.33, 95%CI=0.19-0.62, P<.001), distant metastasis (OR=0.35, 95%CI=0.24-0.46, P<.001) and tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage (OR=0.45, 95%CI=0.29-0.72, P<.001). Meanwhile, reduced FoxM1 expression indicated higher 5-year survival rate (OR=0.38, 95%CI=0.18-0.78, P=.01). Expression of FoxM1 was also increased obviously in CRC tissues (OR=13.04, 95%CI=4.07-41.71, P<.001). Conclusion: This pooled analysis indicated that FoxM1 expression related to lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, TNM stage and poor prognosis of the CRC patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据