The clinicopathological and prognostic value of CD44 expression in bladder cancer: a study based on meta-analysis and TCGA data

Figures & data

Table 1. The basic characteristics of the eligible studies

First author	Country	Age	Stage	Antibodies	Positivity (IHC)	Control Sample	Cancer	Control	Grade 3–4	Grade 1–2	pT2-4	pTa-1	Lymph node metastasis (yes)	Lymph node metastasis (no)	Clinical outcome-MA
							N (E+ %)	N (E+ %)	E+/N	E+/N	E+/N	E+/N	E+/N	E+/N
Sugino 1996 ^26	UK	NA	pTa-pT4	Hermes 3	NA		37 (73%)		12/22	15/15	9/19	18/18			No
Woodman 1996 ^42	UK	NA	NA	Hermes 3	NA	Normal	19 (100%)	5 (100%)							No
Müller 1997 ^41	Germany	NA	pTa-pT4	F10-44-2, Boehringer Mannheim, Germany, No. 1441272	>30%		35 (100%)		14/14	21/21	8/8	27/27			No
Lipponen 1998 ^27	Finland	67	pTa-pT4	clone 2C5, R&D Systems, Abingdon, U.K.	Moderate-strong		170 (28.2%)		15/33	32/137	13/36	35/134	10/21	38/149	Yes
Kong 2003 ^40	China	NA	pTa-pT4	Ab-2,Oncogene Science, Uniondale, NY	NA	Non-cancerous	56 (28.6%)	28 (67.8%)			5/29	11/25			No
Gadalla 2004 ^28	Egypt	NA	pTa-pT4	Mob104, B734, Clone A020, Isotype IgG2b, Diagnostic BioSystems, New Delhi, India	Weak-strong	Normal	55 (67.3%)	8 (87.5%)	11/22	16/22	23/40	14/15			No
Kuncová 2007 ^25	Czech Republic	NA	pTa-pT4	DAKO Glostrup, Denmark	Moderate-strong		122 (86.9%)		25/34	81/88					No
Omran 2012 ^39	Egypt	NA	pT1-pT3	Dako, Denmark	Weak-strong	Normal	50 (80%)	11 (90.9%)	3/6	12/14	31/37	9/13			No
Oliva 2013 ^38	USA	NA	CIS	Pharmingen, San Diego, CA	Scores 2–3	Non-cancerous	17 (5.9%)	17 (88.2%)							No
Hofner 2014 ^37	Germany	65	pT1-pT4	NA	>75%		107 (NA)								Yes
Afonso 2015 ^36	Portugal	70	pTa-pT4	AbD Serotec, MCA2726	Scores ≥4		114 (50%)				38/68	19/46			No
Koukourakis 2016 ^35	Greece	NA	pT2-pT3	Ab6124, Abcam, Cambridge, UK	>5%		66 (42.4%)								Yes
Wu 2017 ^34	China	NA	pT2-pT4	Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers	IRS ≥2		85 (52.9%)						15/18	30/67	No
Wu 2018 ^33	China	NA	pT2-pT4	NA	IRS ≥2		105 (52.4%)						21/26	34/79	Yes

N: number of the study population; E+: positive expression; MA: multivariate analysis; NA: not applicable; IRS: immunoreactive score; IHC: immunohistochemistry.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study selection

Figure 2. Forest plot of the association of CD44 expression between bladder cancer and non-tumor tissue samples

Figure 3. Forest plot of the association of CD44 expression with the clinicopathological characteristics

Figure 4. Forest plot of the prognostic role of CD44 expression using multivariate survival analysis

Figure 5. Association between CD44 expression and bladder cancer, (a) expression level of CD44 between bladder cancer and normal tissue samples; (b) Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of CD44 expression in bladder cancer

Table 2. Association of CD44 expression with the clinicopathological characteristics from TCGA data

Factors	Total (N)	OR with 95% CI	P
Age (≥69 vs. <69 years)	406	0.94 (0.64–1.39)	0.766
Gender (Male vs. female)	406	1.08 (0.69–1.68)	0.735
Grade (High vs. low)	403	1.01 (0.41–2.47)	0.991
T stage (T3-4 vs. T1-2)	373	1.01 (0.65–1.55)	0.978
Lymph node metastasis (Positive vs. negative)	364	0.86 (0.56–1.32)	0.495
Metastasis (Positive vs. negative)	206	0.65 (0.19–2.3)	0.508

N: number of the study population; OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; TCGA: The Cancer Genome Atlas.