Cargando…
Genetic variation frequencies in Wilms' tumor: A meta‐analysis and systematic review
Over the last few decades, numerous biomarkers in Wilms' tumor have been confirmed and shown variations in prevalence. Most of these studies were based on small sample sizes. We carried out a meta‐analysis of the research published from 1992 to 2015 to obtain more precise and comprehensive outc...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4970837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26892980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cas.12910 |
Sumario: | Over the last few decades, numerous biomarkers in Wilms' tumor have been confirmed and shown variations in prevalence. Most of these studies were based on small sample sizes. We carried out a meta‐analysis of the research published from 1992 to 2015 to obtain more precise and comprehensive outcomes for genetic tests. In the present study, 70 out of 5175 published reports were eligible for the meta‐analysis, which was carried out using Stata 12.0 software. Pooled prevalence for gene mutations WT1, WTX, CTNNB1, TP53, MYCN, DROSHA, and DGCR8 was 0.141 (0.104, 0.178), 0.147 (0.110, 0.184), 0.140 (0.100, 0.190), 0.410 (0.214, 0.605), 0.071 (0.041, 0.100), 0.082 (0.048, 0.116), and 0.036 (0.026, 0.046), respectively. Pooled prevalence of loss of heterozygosity at 1p, 11p, 11q, 16q, and 22q was 0.109 (0.084, 0.133), 0.334 (0.295, 0.373), 0.199 (0.146, 0.252), 0.151 (0.129, 0.172), and 0.148 (0.108, 0.189), respectively. Pooled prevalence of 1q and chromosome 12 gain was 0.218 (0.161, 0.275) and 0.273 (0.195, 0.350), respectively. The limited prevalence of currently known genetic alterations in Wilms' tumors indicates that significant drivers of initiation and progression remain to be discovered. Subgroup analyses indicated that ethnicity may be one of the sources of heterogeneity. However, in meta‐regression analyses, no study‐level characteristics of indicators were found to be significant. In addition, the findings of our sensitivity analysis and possible publication bias remind us to interpret results with caution. |
---|