| Title |
Prognostic value of programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: evidence from an updated meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s91469 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anyuan Zhong, Yufei Xing, Xue Pan, Minhua Shi, Huajun Xu |
| Abstract |
The association between the expression of programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of all available studies to evaluate the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in NSCLC. PubMed, Embase, and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang) databases were searched to identify all eligible studies evaluating PD-L1 expression and the survival of NSCLC patients. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) used to assess overall survival were extracted and pooled. Subgroup, sensitivity, and publication-bias analyses were also performed. Eleven articles reporting 12 studies that included a total of 1,653 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Higher PD-L1 expression did not correlate with prognosis in terms of overall survival in patients with NSCLC (HR =1.21, 95% CI: 0.85-1.71, P=0.29). However, a subgroup analysis showed a significant association between PD-L1 expression and poor prognosis in Chinese patients with NSCLC (HR =1.55, 95% CI: 1.04-2.29, P=0.03). The sensitivity analysis showed that the pooled results were not affected by the removal of any single study. There was also no significant publication bias. Our meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between PD-L1 expression and prognosis for patients with NSCLC. Additional, high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to determine the prognostic value of PD-L1 expression in NSCLC. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 24% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,298,249
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,970
of 2,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,860
of 387,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#68
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,933 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 387,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.