Background
Methods
Literature search and study selection
Data extraction
Quality assessment
Statistical analysis
Results
Study selection and description of the include studies
Detection of FBXW7 mutation/expression | Study | Study Region | Recruitment time | No. of patients | Clinical Stage | FBXW7 status method | Cut off | Antibody source | Dilution | Case: Low/High (MT/WT)a | Median follow-up months | Analysis method | OS HR(95%CI) | DFS HR(95%CI) | Quality score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mutation | Chang, 2015 [11] | Taiwan | 2000-2009 | 1519 | TNM I-IV | MassArray | NA | NA | NA | 114/1405 | NA | Univariate | 1.00 (0.98–1.02) | NA | 8 |
Mouradov, 2013 [19] | Australia | 2002-2004 | 822 | TNM II-III | Sanger sequencing | NA | NA | NA | 41/781 | 32.2 | Univariate | 0.96 (0.45–2.06) | NA | 7 | |
Korphaisarn, 2017 [16] | USA | 2009-2015 | 527 | TNM IV | NGS | NA | NA | NA | 43/484 | 30.4 | Multivariate | 2.00 (1.27–3.16) | NA | 8 | |
Iwatsuki, 2010 [14] | Japan | 1993-1999 | 93 | Duke A-D | qRT-PCR | Median | NA | NA | 46/47 | 36 | Multivariate | 1.98 (1.26–3.27) | NA | 7 | |
Gao, 2019 [12] | China | 2015-2016 | 207 | TNM I-IV | MiSeq | NA | NA | NA | 33/174 | 23 | Univariate | 0.59 (0.21–1.68) | 0.75 (0.32–1.79) | 7 | |
Expression | He, 2019 [13] | China | 2009-2011 | 140 | TNM I-IV | IHC | NA | Abcam, USA | 1:500 | 84/56 | NA | Univariate | 2.30 (0.92–5.76) | 2.45 (1.22–4.92) | 6 |
Liu, 2018 [18] | China | 2010-2015 | 509 | TNM I-IV | IHC | Score 4 | Abcam, USA | 1:200 | 359/150 | NA | Univariate | 2.22 (1.40–3.45) | NA | 6 | |
Li, 2018 [17] | China | 2007-2009 | 276 | TNM I-IV | IHC | Score 1 | Bethyl, USA | NA | 60/216 | NA | Multivariate | 3.57 (2.23–5.71) | 4.63 (2.65–8.13) | 7 | |
Tang, 2016 [24] | China | 2011-2011 | 50 | Duke A-D | IHC | score 3 | Santa Cruz, USA | 1:60 | 23/27 | NA | Univariate | 1.04 (0.12–9.42) | NA | 7 | |
Kawashita, 2017 [15] | Japan | 2001-2009 | 56 | NA | IHC | Score 3 | Abcam, USA | 1:100 | 24/32 | 55 | Univariate | 1.98 (0.42–9.26) | 1.50 (0.79–2.85) | 7 |
Correlation between FBXW7 and clinicopathological features
Parameters Characteristics | Number of studies | OR (95%CI) | I2 (%) | Ph | Z | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age(≥ 60 year vs. < 60 year) | 3 | 1.00 (0.93–1.36) | 0 | 0.71 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Gender (Male vs. Female) | 7 | 1.03 (0.83–1.28) | 6 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.78 |
Differentiation(Well vs. Moderate + Poor) | 2 | 0.81 (0.40–1.64) | 0 | 0.63 | 0.89 | 0.37 |
Differentiation(Well+ Moderate vs. Poor) | 4 | 0.72 (0.35–1.48) | 69 | 0.02 | 0.59 | 0.55 |
Size(≥ 5 cm vs. < 5 cm) | 3 | 0.93 (0.64–1.35) | 0 | 0.45 | 0.37 | 0.71 |
Tumor location(Colon vs. Rectum) | 5 | 0.85 (0.64–1.12) | 30 | 0.22 | 1.17 | 0.24 |
Venous invasion(Present vs. Absent) | 3 | 1.63 (1.01–2.64) | 14 | 0.31 | 1.99 | 0.05 |
Peritoneal metastasis (Present vs. Absent) | 2 | 0.82 (0.38–1.80) | 0 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.63 |
Depth of invasion (T1 + T2 vs. T3 + T4) | 3 | 0.44 (0.27–0.74) | 0 | 0.99 | 3.12 | < 0.01 |
Lymph node metastasis (Positive vs. Negative) | 5 | 1.88 (1.40–2.53) | 0 | 0.45 | 4.18 | < 0.01 |
Distant metastasis (Present vs. Absent) | 3 | 1.85 (0.34–10.24) | 92 | < 0.01 | 0.71 | 0.48 |
TNM stage(I + II vs. III + IV) | 3 | 0.53 (0.15–1.84) | 95 | < 0.01 | 1.00 | 0.32 |
Duke’s stage(A + B vs. C + D) | 2 | 0.45 (0.04–5.20) | 90 | < 0.01 | 0.64 | 0.52 |
Prognostic value of FBXW7
Outcome | Characteristics | Number of studies | HR(95%CI) | I2 (%) | Ph | Z | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recruitment time | Before 2009 | 5 | 1.24 (0.93–1.65) | 88 | < 0.01 | 1.46 | 0.14 |
After 2009 | 5 | 1.32 (1.17–1.50) | 32 | 0.21 | 4.43 | < 0.01 | |
Region | Eastern asia | 8 | 1.27 (1.04–1.55) | 77 | < 0.01 | 2.31 | 0.02 |
Other regions | 2 | 1.18 (0.87–1.61) | 62 | 0.10 | 1.08 | 0.28 | |
FBXW7 detection method | IHC/qRT-PCR | 6 | 1.39 (1.22–1.59) | 46 | 0.10 | 4.95 | < 0.01 |
Sequencing | 4 | 1.17 (0.94–1.47) | 73 | 0.01 | 1.40 | 0.16 | |
Sample Size | ≥ 100 | 7 | 1.23 (1.01–1.51) | 81 | < 0.01 | 2.06 | 0.04 |
< 100 | 3 | 1.33 (1.09–1.63) | 0 | 0.85 | 2.81 | < 0.01 | |
Data types | Univariate | 7 | 1.13 (0.94–1.35) | 56 | 0.03 | 1.28 | 0.20 |
Multivariate | 3 | 1.47 (1.25–1.74) | 50 | 0.13 | 4.56 | < 0.01 |
Publication bias and sensitivity analysis
Outcome | Study omitted | HR(95%CI) | I2 (%) | Ph | Z | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OS | Chang, 2015 [11] | 1.32 (1.15–1.52) | 49 | 0.05 | 3.93 | < 0.01 |
He, 2019 [13] | 1.23 (1.04–1.47) | 76 | < 0.01 | 2.38 | 0.02 | |
Mouradov, 2013 [19] | 1.28 (1.08–1.52) | 75 | < 0.01 | 2.83 | < 0.01 | |
Liu, 2018 [18] | 1.22 (1.02–1.47) | 74 | < 0.01 | 2.18 | 0.03 | |
Korphaisarn, 2017 [16] | 1.23 (1.02–1.48) | 75 | < 0.01 | 2.21 | 0.03 | |
Iwatsuki, 2010 [14] | 1.19 (1.03–1.38) | 59 | 0.01 | 2.39 | 0.02 | |
Li, 2018 [17] | 1.23 (1.03–1.48) | 75 | < 0.01 | 2.24 | 0.03 | |
Tang, 2016 [24] | 1.26 (1.06–1.48) | 76 | < 0.01 | 2.69 | < 0.01 | |
Gao, 2019 [12] | 1.29 (1.10–1.52) | 73 | < 0.01 | 3.10 | < 0.01 | |
Kawashita, 2017 [15] | 1.24 (1.05–1.47) | 76 | < 0.01 | 2.55 | 0.01 | |
DFS | He, 2019 [13] | 1.01 (0.56–1.80) | 0 | 0.80 | 0.03 | 0.97 |
Li, 2018 [17] | 1.02 (0.58–1.79) | 0 | 0.82 | 0.06 | 0.95 | |
Gao, 2018 [12] | 1.31 (0.56–3.11) | 0 | 0.94 | 0.62 | 0.53 | |
Kawashita, 2017 [15] | 0.99 (0.51–1.91) | 0 | 0.78 | 0.03 | 0.98 |