Biomarkers : biochemical indicators of exposure, response, and susceptibility to chemicals · 2025
Prognostic value of c-MET protein expression in gastric cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yang Qianni, Han Xiaodong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The heterogeneous nature of c-MET overexpression in gastric cancer (GC) leads to a lack of consensus on its prognostic significance.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive value of c-MET protein expression in gastric cancer patients.
METHODS: A systematic review of studies from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to April 2025. Heterogeneity and robustness were assessed using the Cochrane Q test, I2 statistic, and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was evaluated with Egger's and Begg's tests. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessed methodological quality.
RESULTS: From 2,322 articles, 22 studies were included. High c-MET expression was significantly associated with reduced overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.13, 1.31; I2 = 6.8%; P = 0.371) and disease-free survival (DFS) (pooled HR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.68; I2 = 42.4%; P = 0.139). Definitions of c-MET positivity varied across studies regarding thresholds, staining intensity, and detection methods. Subgroup analysis of OS revealed conflicting conclusions based on study design, cutoff values, and c-MET assays.
CONCLUSION: High c-MET expression may independently predict poor GC prognosis. Future efforts should focus on standardized detection methods and high-quality prospective studies to validate its prognostic value.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive value of c-MET protein expression in gastric cancer patients.
METHODS: A systematic review of studies from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to April 2025. Heterogeneity and robustness were assessed using the Cochrane Q test, I2 statistic, and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was evaluated with Egger's and Begg's tests. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessed methodological quality.
RESULTS: From 2,322 articles, 22 studies were included. High c-MET expression was significantly associated with reduced overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.13, 1.31; I2 = 6.8%; P = 0.371) and disease-free survival (DFS) (pooled HR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.68; I2 = 42.4%; P = 0.139). Definitions of c-MET positivity varied across studies regarding thresholds, staining intensity, and detection methods. Subgroup analysis of OS revealed conflicting conclusions based on study design, cutoff values, and c-MET assays.
CONCLUSION: High c-MET expression may independently predict poor GC prognosis. Future efforts should focus on standardized detection methods and high-quality prospective studies to validate its prognostic value.