Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Nov 4;8(11):e79137.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079137. eCollection 2013.

C-Met as a prognostic marker in gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

C-Met as a prognostic marker in gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shan Yu et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: c-Met has been recognized as an important therapeutic target in gastric cancer, but the prognostic property of the c-Met status is still unclear. We aimed to characterize the prognostic effect of c-Met by systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: We identified 15 studies assessing survival in gastric cancer by c-Met status. Effect measure of interest was hazard ratio (HR) for survival. Meta-regression was performed to estimate the relationship between HR and disease stage. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to account for heterogeneity.

Results: 15 eligible studies provided outcome data stratified by c-Met status in 2210 patients. Meta-analysis of the HRs indicated a significantly poorer Os in patients with high c-Met expression (average HR=2.112, 95%CI: 1.622-2.748). Subgroup analysis showed the prognostic effect of c-Met was identical in protein-level and gene-level based methodology. The same effect was also seen in Asian and Western ethnicity subgroup analysis. Meta-regression showed HR was not associated with disease stage.

Conclusions: Patients with tumors that harbor high c-Met expression are more likely to have a worse Os, with this prognostic effect independent of disease stage. c-Met status should be evaluated in clinical prognosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA flow Chart of selection process to identify eligible studies.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed 1000097.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forest plot showing the meta-analysis of hazard ratio estimates for OS in overall patients.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forest plot showing the meta-analysis of hazard ratio estimates for OS in gene-level subgroup and protein-level subgroup.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Forest plot showing the meta-analysis of hazard ratio estimates for OS in Asian and Western subgroup.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Results of meta-regression.
ln(HR)-ln(percentage of advanced stage).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E et al. (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61(2): 69-90. doi:10.3322/caac.20107. PubMed: 21296855. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ajani JA (2008) Gastroesophageal cancers: Progress and problems. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 6(9): 813-814. PubMed: 18998257. - PubMed
    1. Goscinski MA, Larsen SG, Warloe T, Stoldt S, Nesland JM et al. (2009) Adenocarcinomas on the rise–does it influence survival from oesophageal cancer? Scand J Surg 98(4): 214-220. PubMed: 20218417. - PubMed
    1. Huang TJ, Wang JY, Lin SR, Lian ST, Hsieh JS (2001) Overexpression of the c-met protooncogene in human gastric carcinoma: Correlation to clinical features. Acta Oncol 40(5): 638-643. doi:10.1080/028418601750444204. PubMed: 11669338. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wu CW, Li AF, Chi CW, Chung WW, Liu TY et al. (1998) Hepatocyte growth factor and Met/HGF receptors in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. Oncol Rep 5(4): 817-822. PubMed: 9625824. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances