Search

Objective. This meta-analysis was performed to identify the prognostic value of SLNCR1 in multiple cancer types. Methods. Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Medline, BioMed Central, Springer, Science Direct, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), were searched for relevant studies up to August 2021, and the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to assess the relationship between SLNCR1 expression and overall survival (OS). Results. 12 studies with a total of 1155 patients with 9 different types of cancers were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled HR indicates that high SLNCR1 expression represented poorer prognosis of cancer (HR = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.59–2.80, I2 = 0%, P < 0.00001). Additionally, high SLNCR1 expression was correlated with TNM stage (odds ratio (OR): 1.72, 95% CI: 1.08–2.74, I2 = 62%, P = 0.02), lymph node metastasis (LNM) (OR:2.42, 95% CI: 1.61–3.64, I2 = 55%, P < 0.0001), and distant metastases (DM) (OR: 2.30, 95% CI: 1.50–3.55, I2 = 27%, P = 0.0002). However, no evidence was found for a relationship between SLNCR1 expression and clinical features such as tumor size (OR: 1.71, 95% CI: 0.93–3.14, I2 = 71%, P = 0.09), age (OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.68–1.08, I2 = 0%, P = 0.19), or gender (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.64–1.81, I2 = 55%, P = 0.79). Conclusion. Our findings found that high SLNCR1 expression was associated with poor OS, advanced tumor stage, tumor size, LNM, and DM in multiple cancers, indicating that SLNCR1 may serve as a potential prognostic biomarker for cancer patients in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. Melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a diagnostic and prognostic marker of melanoma. However, whether ctDNA mutations can independently predict survival remains controversial. This meta-analysis assessed the prognostic value of the presence or change in ctDNA mutations in melanoma patients. Methods. We identified studies from the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. We estimated the combined hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using either fixed-effect or random-effect models based on heterogeneity. Results. Sixteen studies including 1,781 patients were included. Both baseline and posttreatment detectable ctDNA were associated with poor OS (baseline detectable vs. undetectable, pooled HR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.64–2.36, P < 0.00001 ; baseline undetectable vs. detectable, pooled HR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.11–0.36, P < 0.00001 ; posttreatment detectable vs. undetectable, pooled HR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.30–4.28, P = 0.005). For PFS, baseline detectable ctDNA may be associated with adverse PFS (baseline detectable vs. undetectable, pooled HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.84–2.37, P = 0.19 ; baseline undetectable vs. detectable, pooled HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.19–0.95, P = 0.04) and baseline high ctDNA and increased ctDNA were significantly associated with adverse PFS (baseline high vs. low/undetectable, pooled HR = 3.29, 95% CI = 1.73–6.25, P = 0.0003 ; increase vs. decrease, pooled HR = 4.48, 95% CI = 2.45–8.17, P < 0.00001). The baseline BRAFV600 ctDNA mutation-positive group was significantly associated with adverse OS compared with the baseline ctDNA-negative group (pooled HR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.58–2.29, P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in PFS between the baseline BRAFV600 ctDNA mutation-detectable group and the undetectable group (pooled HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.72–1.44, P = 0.92). Conclusion. The presence or elevation of ctDNA mutation or BRAFV600 ctDNA mutation was significantly associated with worse prognosis in melanoma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]