Cargando…
Using microRNAs as Novel Predictors of Urologic Cancer Survival: An Integrated Analysis
BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs(miRNAs) are involved in the formation, maintenance, and metastasis of urologic cancer. Here, we aim to gather and evaluate all of the evidence regarding the potential role of miRNAs as novel predictors of urologic cancer survival. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6116416/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30037718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.07.014 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs(miRNAs) are involved in the formation, maintenance, and metastasis of urologic cancer. Here, we aim to gather and evaluate all of the evidence regarding the potential role of miRNAs as novel predictors of urologic cancer survival. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify and score all of the published studies that evaluated the prognostic effects of miRNAs in kidney (KCa), bladder (BCa) or prostate cancer (PCa). Where appropriate, the summary effects of miRNAs on urologic cancer were meta-analysed. The reliability of those results was then further validated by an integrated analysis of the TCGA cohort and miRNA panel. RESULTS: Of 151 datasets, 80 miRNAs were enrolled in this systematic review. A meta-analysis of the prognostic qualities of each miRNA identified an objective association between miRNA and prognosis. miR-21 was identified as an unfavourable miRNA with the overall survival (HR:2.699, 1.76–4.14, P < 0.001) across various prognostic events. Our further meta-analyses, integrating a parallel TCGA analysis, confirmed these partial previous results and further revealed different summary effects, such as the moderate effect of miR-21 in BCa. The refined miRNA panel (KCa-6: miR-27b, −942, −497, −144, −141 and -27a) was more capable of predicting the overall survival than was any single miRNAs included in it (HR: 3.214, 1.971–5.240, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A miRNA panel may be able to determine the prognosis of urologic tumour more effectively and compensate for the unreliability of individual miRNA in estimating prognosis. More large-scale studies are therefore required to evaluate the unbiased prognostic value of miRNAs in urologic cancer effectively. |
---|