Background
Methods
Study strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Data extraction
Quality assessment
Statistical analysis
Results
Characteristics of studies
Author | Year | Region | Type of Cancer | Sample size (high/low) | Follow-up (month) | Endpoints | Expression associated with poor prognosis | Assay method | Cut-off value | Survival analysis | NOS score | Method |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zhu et al. | 2017 | China | Breast Cancer | 27/47(74) | 94 | OS | Low | IHC | High: the sum of the staining intensity and extent scores was higher than 3 | NA | 6 | 2 |
Zhai et al. | 2016 | China | Gastric Caner | 50/67(117) | 114 | OS | Low | IHC | High: IHC score was no less than 2 | Univariate Multivariate | 7 | 2 |
Ruan et al. | 2015 | China | Cervical Squamous Cell Carcinoma | 25/29(54) | 80 | OS | Low | IHC | High: the sum of the staining intensity and extent scores was no less than 4 | NA | 6 | 2 |
He et al. | 2013 | China | Ovarian Cancer | 75/78(153) | 102 | OS,DFS | Low | IHC | High: the sum of the staining intensity and extent scores was no less than 4 | Univariate Multivariate | 7 | 1 |
Li et al. | 2016 | China | Colon Cancer | 83/52(135) | 95.3 | OS,RFS | Low | IHC | High: the sum of the staining intensity and extent scores was no less than 4 | Univariate Multivariate | 7 | 1 |
Colbert et al. | 2013 | USA | Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma | 74/6(80) | 114 | OS,RFS | Low | IHC | High: the sum of the staining intensity and extent scores was higher than 1 | Univariate Multivariate | 7 | 1 |
Association between MLKL expression levels with OS of cancer patients
Subgroup analysis | No. of studies | Pooled HRs | Heterogeneity | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fixed | I2 | p -value | ||
Type of cancer | ||||
Non-digestive system carcinoma | 3 | 0.22[0.11–0.44] | 0% | 0.866 |
Digestive system carcinoma | 3 | 0.30[0.17–0.50] | 0% | 0.748 |
Sample size | ||||
< 100 | 3 | 0.23[0.11–0.46] | 0% | 0.806 |
≥ 100 | 3 | 0.28[0.17–0.48] | 0% | 0.704 |
Follow-up time | ||||
< 100 | 3 | 0.28[0.15–0.53] | 0% | 0.546 |
≥ 100 | 3 | 0.25[0.14–0.44] | 0% | 0.973 |
NOS score | ||||
< 7 | 2 | 0.20[0.08–0.51] | 0% | 0.627 |
≥ 7 | 4 | 0.28[0.18–0.46] | 0% | 0.873 |
Association between MLKL expression levels with EFS of cancer patients
Association between MLKL expression levels with clinicopathological characteristics of cancer patients
Clinicopathological parameters | Studies (n) | Patients (n) | OR (95% CI) | p value | Heterogeneity | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I2 (%) | p | Model | |||||
Differentiation grade (poorly and moderately VS well) | 2 | 252 | 0.86 (0.16–4.57) | 0.857 | 69.2% | 0.071 | Random |
Gender (male vs. female) | 2 | 252 | 1.41 (0.85–2.36) | 0.188 | 0% | 0.609 | Fixed |
Lymph node metastasis (yes vs. no) | 4 | 380 | 3.83 (2.29–6.40) | < 0.001 | 0% | 0.478 | Fixed |
Tumor stage (III–IV vs. I–II) | 3 | 326 | 1.81 (1.09–3.01) | 0.021 | 21.7% | 0.279 | Fixed |
Age (> 60vs. ≤ 60 years) | 3 | 406 | 1.93 (1.28–2.93) | 0.002 | 0% | 0.569 | Fixed |