Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 14, 2016; 22(10): 3038-3051
Published online Mar 14, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i10.3038
Published online Mar 14, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i10.3038
Table 1 Main characteristics of all the studies included in the meta-analysis
Study | Study region | n | Mean age | Gender (M/F) | Clinical stage | Study design | Tumor type | Marker detection | Clinicopathological features | HR | Outcome | Quality assessment |
Li et al[26], 2014 | China | 283 | 55.0 (18.0–79.0) | 174/109 | I-IV | Prospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg | NR | R | OS | 8 |
Luo et al[27], 2014 | China | 1333 | 54.1 ± 10.9 | 912/421 | I-IV | Retrospective | MF | HBsAg/anti-HCV | NR | R | OS | 9 |
Uenishi et al[28], 2014 | Japan | 90 | NR | 61/29 | I-IV | Retrospective | MF | HBsAg/anti-HCV | G | R | OS | 9 |
Zhang et al[29], 2014 | China | 127 | 55.5 ± 11.8 | 102/25 | I-IV | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg/anti-HCV | NR | R | OS/DFS | 9 |
Liu et al[30], 2013 | China | 81 | 59.0 (30.0-76.0) | 48/33 | NR | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg/HBcAb | NR | R | OS | 9 |
Wu et al[31], 2013 | China | 138 | 55 | 107/31 | I-IV | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg/HBcAb | G, ALT, AST, TB, γ-GT, AFP, CA19-9, C, CF, D, TN, TS, LNM, VI | E | OS | 8 |
Jiang et al[32], 2011 | China | 76 | 51.0 (40.0–60.0) | 53/23 | I-IV | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg | NR | R | OS | 9 |
Peng et al[33], 2011 | China | 62 | NR | NR | NR | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg/HBcAb | AFP, CA19-9, C, CF, D, TL, TN, TS, LNM, VI | NR | NR | 8 |
Uenishi et al[34], 2011 | Japan | 35 | 61.0 (35.0-83.0) | 11/24 | II-IV | Retrospective | MF | HBsAg/anti-HCV | NR | E | OS | 8 |
Zhou et al[11], 2011 | China | 155 | 55.0 ± 10.7 (27.0-76.0) | 102/53 | NR | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg | G, ALT, AST, TB, γ-GT, AFP, CA19-9, C, CF, D, TL, TN, TS, LNM, VI | R | OS/DFS | 9 |
Zhang et al[12], 2010 | China | 40 | 56.0 (34.0-74.0) | 24/16 | I-IV | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg/HBcAb | NR | E | OS | 8 |
Zhou et al[10], 2010 | China | 317 | 53.1 ± 10.5 | 223/94 | NR | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg | G, ALT, AST, TB, γ-GT, AFP, CA19-9, C, CF, D, TL, TN, LNM, VI | NR | NR | 8 |
Hai et al[13], 2005 | Japan | 38 | NR | 23/15 | I-IV | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | anti-HCV | G | E | OS | 8 |
Asayama et al[35], 2002 | Japan | 67 | 62.0 (33.0-83.0) | 36/31 | NR | Retrospective | MF/PI/IG | HBsAg/anti-HCV | G | E | OS | 8 |
Table 2 Subgroup meta-analysis for the correlation between hepatitis B virus infection and overall survival
Subgroup | n | Analytical model | HR | 95%CI | Heterogeneity | |
I2(%) | P value | |||||
Sample size | ||||||
Sample size ≥ 100 | 5 | FEM | 0.72 | 0.65-0.81 | 33.3 | 0.200 |
Sample size < 100 | 6 | FEM | 0.84 | 0.72-0.98 | 28.7 | 0.219 |
Tumor type | ||||||
MF, PI or IG | 8 | REM | 0.75 | 0.62-0.90 | 51.8 | 0.043 |
MF only | 3 | FEM | 0.74 | 0.64-0.85 | 0.00 | 0.709 |
Study region | ||||||
China | 8 | FEM | 0.75 | 0.69-0.82 | 40.7 | 0.107 |
Non-China | 3 | FEM | 1.10 | 0.67-1.80 | 0.00 | 0.476 |
Mean age | ||||||
Mean age ≥ 55 | 8 | FEM | 0.71 | 0.62-0.82 | 37.6 | 0.130 |
Mean age < 55 | 2 | REM | 0.80 | 0.67-0.95 | 59.7 | 0.115 |
Table 3 Meta-analysis of hepatitis B virus infection and clinicopathological features
Clinicopathological features | n | Cases | Analytical model | OR | 95%CI | Heterogeneity | |
I2(%) | P value | ||||||
Gender (male vs female) | 4 | 677 | REM | 1.91 | 1.06-3.44 | 55.0 | 0.084 |
ALT (≥ 42 U/L vs < 42 U/L) | 3 | 610 | REM | 1.23 | 0.64-2.35 | 63.3 | 0.066 |
AST (≥ 37 U/L vs < 37 U/L) | 3 | 610 | REM | 1.93 | 1.11-3.35 | 52.8 | 0.120 |
TBIL(≥ 20 μmol/L vs < 20 μmol/L) | 3 | 610 | FEM | 0.91 | 0.62-1.33 | 0.00 | 0.979 |
γ-GT (≥ 64 U/L vs < 64 U/L) | 3 | 610 | REM | 0.77 | 0.43-1.38 | 61.7 | 0.074 |
AFP (≥ 20 ng/mL vs < 20 ng/mL) | 4 | 669 | FEM | 3.86 | 2.58-5.78 | 0.00 | 0.804 |
CA19-9 (≥ 37 U/mL vs < 37 U/mL) | 4 | 668 | FEM | 0.47 | 0.34-0.65 | 0.00 | 0.806 |
Cirrhosis (yes vs no) | 4 | 672 | FEM | 6.44 | 4.33-9.56 | 38.8 | 0.179 |
Capsule formation (yes vs no) | 4 | 672 | FEM | 6.04 | 3.56-10.26 | 31.9 | 0.221 |
Differentiation (well/moderate vs poor) | 4 | 672 | REM | 0.86 | 0.41-1.80 | 73.5 | 0.010 |
Tumor location (both lobes vs one lobe) | 3 | 534 | FEM | 0.76 | 0.31-1.87 | 0.00 | 0.995 |
Tumor number (multiple vs single) | 4 | 672 | FEM | 0.91 | 0.57-1.46 | 0.00 | 0.983 |
Tumor size (≥ 5 cm vs < 5 cm) | 3 | 355 | FEM | 0.72 | 0.46-1.14 | 37.9 | 0.200 |
Lymph node metastasis (yes vs no) | 4 | 672 | FEM | 0.39 | 0.25-0.58 | 0.00 | 0.990 |
Vascular invasion(yes vs no) | 4 | 672 | REM | 1.10 | 0.49-2.43 | 69.0 | 0.021 |
- Citation: Wang Z, Sheng YY, Dong QZ, Qin LX. Hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus play different prognostic roles in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(10): 3038-3051
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i10/3038.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i10.3038