| Title |
Prognostic value and clinicopathological significance of proliferating cell nuclear antigen expression in gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s126551 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Songcheng Yin, Zhan Li, Jinyu Huang, Zhifeng Miao, Junyan Zhang, Chunyang Lu, Hao Xu, Huimian Xu |
| Abstract |
The prognostic significance of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) expression in gastric cancer has long been assessed, yet results remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the prognostic value and clinicopathological significance of PCNA in gastric cancer. A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to investigate the correlations between PCNA expression and clinicopathological features, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). A total of 19 studies involving 2,852 participants were included in our analysis. The pooled HR indicated that high PCNA expression was significantly associated with poor OS (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.32-2.08) and DFS (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.40-2.36). Subgroup analysis revealed that the association between PCNA and OS was also significant in Asian and European patients. In addition, the pooled ORs showed that high PCNA expression was significantly associated with deeper tumor invasion (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.71-3.27), lymph node metastasis (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.85-3.35), and advanced stage cancer (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.36-2.63). Our meta-analysis indicates that high PCNA expression might be a prognosticator of poor survival and a promising therapeutic target for gastric cancer patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#839
of 2,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,934
of 422,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#30
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,967 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.