Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of DEPTOR expression in cancer patients: a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

Author	Year	Country	Type of cancer	Sample size	End points	Assay method	Cutoff value	Evaluation of DEPTOR expression	NOSscore	Source of HR
Liu et al^Citation23	2015	China	Esophageal carcinoma	220	OS	IHC	Median	High/low	8	1
Lai et al^Citation7	2014	China	Colorectal cancer	90	OS	IHC	Positive: the sum of the staining intensity and extent scores was higher than 0	Positive/negative	7	1, 2
Boyd et al^Citation18	2010	Britain	Myeloma	71	OS, PFS	GeneChip	The top quartile of DEPTOR expression was defined as high expression and the remaining three quartiles as low expression	High/low	6	1
Ji et al^Citation8	2016	China	Esophageal carcinoma	59	OS	IHC	Positive: the sum of staining intensity and extent scores was higher than 1	Positive/negative	7	2
Parvani et al^Citation20	2015	America	Breast cancer	161	DFS	Microarray	Median	High/low	8	1
Dong et al^Citation22	2017	China	Esophageal carcinoma	184	OS	IHC	Median	Positive/negative	6	1
Yen et al^Citation21	2012	China	Hepatocellular carcinoma	51	OS	IHC	Expression of DEPTOR in tumor > tumor adjacent was defined as high expression	High/low	6	1
Pei et al^Citation12	2011	China	Thyroid carcinoma	114	OS, DFS	IHC	ROC	Positive/negative	7	1, 2
Quwaider et al^Citation9	2017	Spain	MM	24	PFS	Capillary electrophoresis immunoassay	Median	High/low	7	1

Notes: Method: 1 denotes as obtaining HRs directly from publications; 2 denotes as HRs calculated from the total number of events, corresponding P-value and data from Kaplan–Meier curves.

Abbreviations: NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale; OS, overall survival; IHC, immunohistochemistry; PFS, progression-free survival; DFS, disease-free survival; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.

Figure 1 The flow diagram indicated the process of study selection.

Table 2 Subgroup analyses of pooled HRs for OS in cancer patients with abnormal expression level of DEPTOR

Subgroup analysis	No of studies	Pooled HRs	Meta-regression (P value)	Heterogeneity
		Random		I^2 (%)	P value
Sample size			0.411
<100	4	1.406 (0.351–5.629)	–	82.1	0.001
≥100	3	0.332 (0.092–1.195)	–	75.6	0.017
Type of cancer			0.855
Digestive system carcinoma	5	0.755 (0.195–2.921)	–	88.8	0.000
Nondigestive system carcinoma	2	0.902 (0.056–14.419)	–	90.2	0.001
NOS score			0.576
≥7	4	0.619 (0.131–2.925)	–	90.1	0.000
<7	3	1.153 (0.167–7.984)	–	85.0	0.001
Evaluation of DEPTOR expression			0.382
High/low	3	0.470 (0.085–2.587)	–	91.3	0.000
Positive/negative	4	1.225 (0.343–4.368)	–	72.1	0.013

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.

Figure 2 Meta-analysis of the pooled HRs of OS for cancer patients.

Note: Weights are from random effects analysis.
Abbreviation: OS, overall survival.

Figure 3 Results of subgroup analysis of pooled HRs of OS for cancer patients.

Notes: (A) Subgroup analysis stratified by sample size. (B) Subgroup analysis stratified by type of cancer. (C) Subgroup analysis stratified by NOS score. (D) Subgroup analysis stratified by evaluation of DEPTOR expression. Weights are from random effects analysis.
Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.

Figure 4 Meta-analysis of the pooled HRs of EFS for cancer patients.

Note: Weights are from random-effects analysis.
Abbreviation: EFS, event-free survival.

Table 3 Association between DEPTOR and clinicopathological characteristics of cancer patients

Clinicopathological parameters	Studies (n)	Patients (n)	OR (95% CI)	P value	Heterogeneity
					I^2 (%)	P value	Model
Differentiation (poorly and moderately vs well)	3	393	1.210 (0.776–1.886)	0.401	0	0.449	Fixed
Lymph node metastasis (yes vs no)	5	658	1.021 (0.339–3.072)	0.971	90.0	<0.001	Random
Tumor stage (III–IV vs I–II)	4	553	1.995 (0.594–6.695)	0.264	89.6	<0.001	Random
Gender (male vs female)	7	872	1.002 (0.739–1.358)	0.990	0	0.423	Fixed

Figure 5 Sensitivity analysis plot of pooled HRs of OS (A) and EFS (B) for cancer patients with abnormally expressed DEPTOR.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; EFS, event-free survival.

LiuNBZhangJHLiuYFHigh DEPTOR expression correlates with poor prognosis in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomaOnco Targets Ther201583449345526640385

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LaiEYChenZGZhouXDEPTOR expression negatively correlates with mTORC1 activity and tumor progression in colorectal cancerAsian Pac J Cancer Prev201415114589459424969890

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

BoydKDWalkerBAWardellCPHigh expression levels of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor DEPTOR are predictive of response to thalidomide in myelomaLeuk Lymphoma201051112126212920858096

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

JiYMZhouXFZhangJDEPTOR suppresses the progression of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and predicts poor prognosisOncotarget2016712141881419826893358

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

ParvaniJGDavuluriGWendtMKDeptor enhances triple-negative breast cancer metastasis and chemoresistance through coupling to survivin expressionNeoplasia201517331732825810016

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DongXWangLHanZDifferent functions of DEPTOR in modulating sensitivity to chemotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinomaExp Cell Res20173531354528267437

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

YenCHLuYCLiCHFunctional characterization of glycine N-methyltransferase and its interactive protein DEPDC6/DEPTOR in hepatocellular carcinomaMol Med201218129621989948

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PeiLXiePZhouEYangQLuoYTangZOverexpression of DEP domain containing mTOR-interacting protein correlates with poor prognosis in differentiated thyroid carcinomaMol Med Rep20114581782321643629

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

QuwaiderDCorcheteLAMisiewicz-KrzeminskaIDEPTOR maintains plasma cell differentiation and favorably affects prognosis in multiple myelomaJ Hematol Oncol20171019228420429

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar