The prognostic significance of PD-L1 in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) had been investigated in previous studies; however, the results remain controversial. The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the prognostic and clinicopathological significance of the PD-L1 expression in patients with RCC. Relevant literature was identified form PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library, which compared the prognostic significance between PD-L1 expression and RCC. Hazard ratios (HRs) for survival outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for clinical parameters associated with PD-L1 were extracted from eligible studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I value. The fixed-effects model was used if there was no evidence of heterogeneity; otherwise, the random-effects model was used. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's funnel plots and Egger's regression test. A total of 1863 patients from ten eligible studies were analyzed. The results showed that PD-L1 expression is associated with poor overall survival in clear cell RCC (ccRCC) (HR = 2.76, 95%CI: 2.25-3.38, I = 14.4%, P < 0.001) and non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC) (HR = 2.77, 95%CI: 1.62-4.72, I = 28.8%, P < 0.001). In addition, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly associated with primary tumor stage (OR = 1.76, 95%CI: 1.39-2.23; I = 56.3%), regional lymph node involvement (OR = 2.10, 95%CI: 1.48-2.98; I = 14.9%), distant metastases (OR = 2.69, 95%CI: 2.05-3.54; I = 0.0%), nuclear grade (OR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.32-2.23; I = 79.4%) and histologic tumor necrosis (OR = 2.25, 95%CI: 1.59-3.18; I = 66.1%) in patients with RCC. The outcome stability was confirmed by sensitivity analysis. Both the Begg's funnel plot test (P = 0.276) and the Egger's (P = 0.388) verified that there was no publication bias within the included studies. This study suggests that PD-L1 expression is correlated with poor prognosis and advanced clinicopathological features in RCC patients.
BackgroundThe prognostic value of p53 expression in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) had been investigated in previous studies; however, the results remain inconsistent. This study was performed to investigate the prognostic and clinicopathological significance of p53 protein expression in RCC.Materials and MethodsLiterature was identified from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database, which investigated the relationships between p53 expression and outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) for survival outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for clinical parameters associated with p53 were extracted from eligible studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value. The fixed-effects model was used if there was no evidence of heterogeneity; otherwise, the random-effects model was used. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's funnel plots and Egger's regression test.ResultsA total of 2,013 patients from 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that p53 positive expression is associated with poor overall survival (OS) (HR = 2.17, 95% confidence [CI]: 1.51–3.13) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.19–2.12) in RCC. In addition, p53 positive expression was closely correlated with TNM stage (III/IV vs. I/II: OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.05–6.00), Fuhrman grade (III/IV vs. I/II: OR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.24–2.63), and distant metastasis (M1 vs. M0: OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.16–2.49), but not related to lymph node involvement (N1 vs. N0: OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 0.80–2.18), primary tumor stage (pT3/pT4 vs. pT1/pT2: OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.88–1.53), and sex (n = 2, male vs. female, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.70–1.68).ConclusionsThis study suggests that p53 positive expression is correlated with poor prognosis and advanced clinicopathological features in patients with RCC, which indicates that p53 is a potentially effective therapeutic target.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.