Role of Notch signaling pathway in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of the literature

doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i27.9191

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 20, Issue 27

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (5336)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-3) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

397

WORD

233

HTML

2589

Figures (1-3)

188

Tables (1-3)

176

Sum=3583

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

994

Download

759

Sum=1753

Jul 21, 2014 (publication date) through Sep 26, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (0)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Meta-Analysis

World J Gastroenterol. Jul 21, 2014; 20(27): 9191-9199
Published online Jul 21, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i27.9191

Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

Ref.	Country	Ethnicity	Study design	Detected target	No. of cases detected for Notch1	No. of controls detected for Notch1	No. of cases detected for Hes1	No. of controls detected for Hes1	No. of cases detected for Jagged1	No. of controls detected for Jagged1
Gou et al[7]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1	108	NC	-	-	-	-
Huang et al[8]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1	68	28	-	-	-	-
Kang et al[9]	South Korea	Asians	HCC	Notch1, Notch3, Jagged1, Jagged2, Hes1	103	NC	103	NC	103	NC
Li et al[10]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1	168	27	-	-	-	-
Liu et al[11]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1	317	NC	-	-	-	-
Piazzi et al[12]	Italy	Caucasians	HCC	DLL1	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sun et al[13]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1, Notch2, Hes1	74	10	74	10	-	-
Wang et al[14]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1, Hes1, NICD	72	16	72	16	-	-
Yang et al[15]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1	135	27	-	-	-	-
Yang et al[16]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1, Jagged1, DLL1	63	63	-	-	63	63
Yeh et al[17]	Taiwan, China	Asians	HCC	Notch1, Jagged1	90	NC	-	-	96	NC
Zhang et al[18]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1, DLL4	45	25	-	-	-	-
Zhang et al[19]	China	Asians	HCC	Notch1	54	54	-	-	-	-
Zhou et al[20]	China	Asians	HCC	Jagged1, Notch1	60	NC	-	-	60	20
Ishigami et al[21]	Japan	Asians	HCC	DLL4	-	-	-	-	-	-

HCC: Hospital-based case-control; NC: No control; DLL: Delta-like; NICD: Intracellular domain of Notch.

Table 2 Meta-analysis of Notch1 and gastric cancer

Stratification of gastric cancer	No. of participants	OR (95%CI)	Statistical method	P value	Ref.
Gender:	1040	1.21 (0.92-1.59)	Fixed	0.18	9[8-11,15,17-20]
Male vs female	1040	1.21 (0.92-1.59)	Fixed	0.18	9[8-11,15,17-20]
Age (yr):	607	1.36 (0.96-1.91)	Fixed	0.08	4[8,10,11,19]
≤ 60 vs > 60	607	1.36 (0.96-1.91)	Fixed	0.08	4[8,10,11,19]
Location:	589	0.62 (0.43-0.91)	Fixed	0.01^a	5[8,11,17,19,20]
Cardia vs noncardia	589	0.62 (0.43-0.91)	Fixed	0.01^a	5[8,11,17,19,20]
Tumor size:	634	0.68 (0.49-0.94)	Fixed	0.02^a	5[8,11,15,19,20]
≤ 5 cm vs > 5 cm	634	0.68 (0.49-0.94)	Fixed	0.02^a	5[8,11,15,19,20]
Lauren's classification:	680	1.45 (1.03-2.03)	Fixed	0.03^a	5[9,11,13,15,17]
Intestinal vs diffuse	680	1.45 (1.03-2.03)	Fixed	0.03^a	5[9,11,13,15,17]
Histological differentiation:	1220	1.42 (0.85-2.37)	Random	0.17	11[7-11,14,15,17-20]
Well/moderate vs poor/undifferentiated	1220	1.42 (0.85-2.37)	Random	0.17	11[7-11,14,15,17-20]
Lymphovascular invasion:	258	0.49 (0.28-0.87)	Fixed	0.01^a	2[10,17]
Negative vs positive	258	0.49 (0.28-0.87)	Fixed	0.01^a	2[10,17]
T stage:	453	0.71 (0.24-2.09)	Random	0.54	5[7,10,14,18,20]
T1-2 vs T3-4	453	0.71 (0.24-2.09)	Random	0.54	5[7,10,14,18,20]
N stage:	1220	1.07 (0.57-2.00)	Random	0.83	11[7-11,14,15,17-20]
N0 vs N1-3	1220	1.07 (0.57-2.00)	Random	0.83	11[7-11,14,15,17-20]
Distal metastasis:	285	0.33 (0.14-0.78)	Fixed	0.01^a	3[10,14,18]
Negative vs positive	285	0.33 (0.14-0.78)	Fixed	0.01^a	3[10,14,18]
TNM stage:	567	0.91 (0.53-1.57)	Random	0.74	7[8,9,14,15,17-19]
Stages I-II vs III-IV	567	0.91 (0.53-1.57)	Random	0.74	7[8,9,14,15,17-19]

^aP < 0.05. TNM: Tumor node metastasis.

Table 3 Meta-analysis of other components of Notch signaling pathway and gastric cancer

Stratification of gastric cancer	Notch2		Notch3		Jagged1		Jagged2		DLL4		Hes1
	OR (95%CI)	P value	OR (95%CI)	P value	OR (95%CI)	P value	OR (95%CI)	P value	OR (95%CI)	P value	OR (95%CI)	P value
Tumor tissue vs normal tissue	292.00 (23.75-3589.39)	< 0.01^a	-	-	0.94 (0.00-254.96)	0.98	-	-	3.84 (2.52-5.83)	< 0.01^a	14.31 (4.11-49.87)	< 0.01^a
Gender:	-	-	1.01 (0.46-2.26)	0.97	1.26 (0.36-4.39)	0.36	2.90 (0.76-11.02)	0.12	1.03 (0.57-1.86)	0.93	1.05 (0.47-2.35)	0.90
Male vs female	-	-	1.01 (0.46-2.26)	0.97	1.26 (0.36-4.39)	0.36	2.90 (0.76-11.02)	0.12	1.03 (0.57-1.86)	0.93	1.05 (0.47-2.35)	0.90
Age (yr):	-	-	0.75 (0.30-1.88)	0.54	1.19 (0.48-2.94)	0.70	0.17 (0.02-1.40)	0.10	0.52 (0.13-2.16)	0.37	1.13 (0.45-2.81)	0.80
≤ 55 vs > 55	-	-	0.75 (0.30-1.88)	0.54	1.19 (0.48-2.94)	0.70	0.17 (0.02-1.40)	0.10	0.52 (0.13-2.16)	0.37	1.13 (0.45-2.81)	0.80
Location:	-	-	-	-	0.63 (0.26-1.50)	0.30	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cardia vs noncardia	-	-	-	-	0.63 (0.26-1.50)	0.30	-	-	-	-	-	-
Lauren's classification:	0.60 (0.02-15.19)	0.76	2.61 (1.17-5.84)	0.02^a	2.02 (1.11-3.69)	0.02^a	3.97 (1.17-13.46)	0.03^a	-	-	1.71 (0.88-3.30)	0.11
Intestinal vs diffuse	0.60 (0.02-15.19)	0.76	2.61 (1.17-5.84)	0.02^a	2.02 (1.11-3.69)	0.02^a	3.97 (1.17-13.46)	0.03^a	-	-	1.71 (0.88-3.30)	0.11
Histological differentiation:	-	-	2.04 (0.89-4.67)	0.09	2.18 (1.23-3.86)	< 0.0^a	1.36 (0.44-4.18)	0.60	0.89 (0.52-1.54)	0.69	1.78 (0.95-3.34)	0.07
Well/moderate vs poor/undifferentiated	-	-	2.04 (0.89-4.67)	0.09	2.18 (1.23-3.86)	< 0.0^a	1.36 (0.44-4.18)	0.60	0.89 (0.52-1.54)	0.69	1.78 (0.95-3.34)	0.07
T stage:	-	-	2.40 (0.73-7.92)	0.15	0.50 (0.03-8.54)	0.63	3.70 (1.05-13.08)	0.04^a (T1 vs T2-4)	0.29 (0.16-0.54)	< 0.01^a	1.72 (0.49-6.00)	0.39 (T1 vs T2-4)
T1-2 vs T3-4	-	-	2.40 (0.73-7.92)	0.15	0.50 (0.03-8.54)	0.63	3.70 (1.05-13.08)	0.04^a (T1 vs T2-4)	0.29 (0.16-0.54)	< 0.01^a	1.72 (0.49-6.00)	0.39 (T1 vs T2-4)
N stage:	-	-	1.84 (0.71-4.75)	0.21	0.82 (0.44-1.50)	0.51	0.91 (0.23- 3.55)	0.89	0.12 (0.06-0.23)	< 0.01^a	0.39 (0.04-4.38)	0.45
N0 vs N1-3	-	-	1.84 (0.71-4.75)	0.21	0.82 (0.44-1.50)	0.51	0.91 (0.23- 3.55)	0.89	0.12 (0.06-0.23)	< 0.01^a	0.39 (0.04-4.38)	0.45
Distal metastasis:	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.55 (0.10-3.00)	0.49	1.76 (0.36-8.51)	0.48
Negative vs positive	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.55 (0.10-3.00)	0.49	1.76 (0.36-8.51)	0.48
TNM stage:	-	-	1.19 (0.54-2.63)	0.67	0.78 (0.42-1.42)	0.41	1.32 (0.44-3.98)	0.62	0.15 (0.03-0.80)	0.03^a	0.70 (0.15-3.36)	0.66
Stages I-II vs III-IV	-	-	1.19 (0.54-2.63)	0.67	0.78 (0.42-1.42)	0.41	1.32 (0.44-3.98)	0.62	0.15 (0.03-0.80)	0.03^a	0.70 (0.15-3.36)	0.66

^aP < 0.05. DLL: Delta-like; TNM: Tumor node metastasis.

Citation: Du X, Cheng Z, Wang YH, Guo ZH, Zhang SQ, Hu JK, Zhou ZG. Role of Notch signaling pathway in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of the literature. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(27): 9191-9199
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i27/9191.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i27.9191