| Title |
The clinicopathological significance and ethnic difference of FHIT hypermethylation in non-small-cell lung carcinoma: a meta-analysis and literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s85253 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaoyu Wu, Guannan Wu, Xuequan Yao, Gang Hou, Feng Jiang |
| Abstract |
Emerging evidence indicates that FHIT is a candidate tumor suppressor in many types of tumors including non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). However, the prognostic value and correlation between FHIT hypermethylation and clinicopathological characteristics of NSCLC remains unclear. In this report, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of FHIT hypermethylation on the incidence of NSCLC and clinicopathological characteristics of human NSCLC patients. Final analysis of 1,801 NSCLC patients from 18 eligible studies was performed. FHIT hypermethylation was found to be significantly higher in NSCLC than in normal lung tissue. The pooled odds ratio (OR) from ten studies included 819 NSCLC and 792 normal lung tissues (OR =7.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] =2.98-18.91, P<0.0001). Subgroup analysis based on ethnicity implied that FHIT hypermethylation level was higher in NSCLC tissues than in normal tissues in both Caucasians (P=0.02) and Asians (P<0.0001), indicating that the difference in Asians was much more significant. FHIT hypermethylation was also correlated with sex status, smoking status, as well as pathological types. In addition, patients with FHIT hypermethylation had a lower survival rate than those without (hazard ratio =1.73, 95% CI =1.10-2.71, P=0.02). The results of this meta-analysis suggest that FHIT hypermethylation is associated with an increased risk and poor survival in NSCLC patients. FHIT hypermethylation, which induces the inactivation of FHIT gene, plays an important role in the carcinogenesis and clinical outcome and may serve as a potential diagnostic marker and drug target of NSCLC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 33% |
| Researcher | 3 | 25% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 33% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
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 20 February 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,310
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,611
of 406,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#51
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 406,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.