Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of Nanog expression in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1 Flow chart of literature search and selection.

Abbreviations: CNKI, China National Knowledge Infrastructure; IHC, immunohistochemistry.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis

Author	Year	Country	Language	No. of patients	Detection method	Gender: male(+/–) female(+/–)	Age: ≥50(+/–) ＜50(+/–)	Tumor size: ＞3cm(+/–) ≤3cm+/–)	Differentiation: low (+/–) high and moderate(+/–)	Lymph node metastasis: yes (+/–) no (+/–)	TNM stage: I/II (+/–) III/IV (+/–)	Survival information	NOS scores
Chiou et al^Citation15	2010	China	English	118	IHC	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	OS(S)	8
Sun et al^Citation16	2012	China	Chinese	186	IHC	110/27 42/7	60/15 92/19	NA	76/1 76/33	96/21 56/13	82/30 70/4	NA	8
Li et al^Citation10	2013	China	English	309	IHC	44/90 50/125	44/116 50/99	NA	41/30 53/185	NA	53/136 41/79	OS(M)	8
Gialmanidis et al^Citation11	2013	Greece	English	80	IHC	NA	NA	NA	39/4 35/2	32/2 32/3	53/5 11/0	NA	8
Kirita et al^Citation17	2013	Japan	English	107	IHC	NA	NA	NA	NA	10/11 53/33	NA	NA	7
Luo et al^Citation18	2013	China	Chinese	106	IHC	18/63 8/17	13/48 13/32	NA	13/20 13/60	16/31 10/49	NA	NA	7
Park et al^Citation12	2016	Korea	English	226	IHC	NA	NA	51/46 45/84	30/17 66/113	55/51 41/79	58/89 38/41	OS(M)	8
Park et al^Citation12	2016	Korea	English	142	IHC	NA	NA	72/7 59/4	NA	56/5 75/6	94/10 37/1	OS(S)	8
Yao et al^Citation19	2016	China	Chinese	56	IHC	7/8 22/19	18/22 11/5	NA	NA	NA	NA	OS(M)	6
Zhong et al^Citation20	2016	China	Chinese	50	IHC	31/7 8/4	11/2 28/9	21/9 18/2	18/1 21/10	20/10 19/1	NA	NA	6
Chang et al^Citation21	2017	Korea	English	112	IHC	29/49 15/19	28/43 16/25	NA	13/16 31/52	40/61 4/7	NA	OS(M)	8

Abbreviations: IHC, immunohistochemistry; NA, not available; OS, overall survival; M, multivariate analysis; S, survival curves; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Table 2 Results of subgroup analysis of overall survival by publication year, sample size and ethnicity

Subgroup analysis	No. of studies	No. of patients	P-value	HR (95% CI)	Heterogeneity
					I^2 (%)	P-value
Total	6	963	0.000	1.95 (1.38–2.75)	58.5	0.034
Publication year
≤2013	2	427	0.008	2.05 (1.20–3.52)	50.5	0.155
>2013	4	536	0.040	1.77 (1.03–3.06)	69.0	0.022
Sample size
≤140	3	286	0.000	2.64 (1.94–3.60)	0.0	0.399
>140	3	677	0.125	1.46 (0.90–2.37)	55.3	0.107
Ethnicity
Chinese	3	483	0.000	1.86 (1.43–2.41)	1.1	0.364
Korean	3	480	0.237	1.61 (0.73–3.55)	78.9	0.009

Figure 2 Forest plot for the association between Nanog expression and OS.

Abbreviation: OS, overall survival.

Table 3 The association between Nanog expression and clinicopathological features

Clinicopathological features	No. of studies	No. of patients	P-value	OR (95% CI)	Heterogeneity		Model
					I^2 (%)	P-value
Gender	6	819	0.783	0.95 (0.69–1.33)	0.0	0.534	Fixed
Age	6	819	0.119	0.78 (0.57–1.07)	0.0	0.714	Fixed
Tumor size	3	418	0.824	0.87 (0.26–2.95)	71.9	0.029	Random
Differentiation	7	1069	0.000	3.18 (1.69–5.98)	62.5	0.014	Random
LNM	8	1009	0.121	1.29 (0.94–1.77)	49.4	0.054	Fixed
TNM stage	5	943	0.001	1.78 (1.28–2.47)	49.0	0.098	Fixed

Abbreviation: LNM, lymph node metastasis.

Table 4 Results of subgroup analysis of tumor differentiation by publication year, sample size and ethnicity

Subgroup analysis	No. of studies	No. of patients	P-value	OR (95% CI)	Heterogeneity
					I^2 (%)	P-value
Total	7	1069	0.000	3.18 (1.69–5.98)	62.5	0.014
Publication year
≤2013	4	681	0.013	3.79 (1.32–10.83)	70.7	0.017
>2013	3	388	0.021	2.47 (1.15–5.32)	42.9	0.173
Sample size
≤140	4	348	0.122	1.93 (0.84–4.45)	43.4	0.151
>140	3	721	0.000	5.08 (2.21–11.69)	64.5	0.060
Ethnicity
Chinese	4	651	0.000	5.50 (2.53–11.92)	44.9	0.142
Korean + Greek	3	418	0.214	1.69 (0.74–3.86)	53.1	0.118

Figure 3 Forest plot for the association between Nanog expression and clinicopathological characteristics, including (A) gender, (B) age, (C) tumor size, (D) tumor differentiation, (E) lymph node metastasis, and (F) TNM stage.

Table 5 Publication bias evaluation by Begg’s test and Egger’s test

Groups of outcomes	No. of studies	Estimates	Begg’s test (P-value)	Egger’s test (P-value)	Publication bias
OS	6	HR+95%CI	1.000	0.564	Not significant
Gender	6	OR+95%CI	1.000	0.570	Not significant
Age	6	OR+95%CI	1.000	0.873	Not significant
Tumor size	3	OR+95%CI	0.296	0.079	Not significant
Differentiation	7	OR+95%CI	0.764	0.939	Not significant
LNM	8	OR+95%CI	0.462	0.232	Not significant
TNM stage	5	OR+95%CI	0.462	0.240	Not significant

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; LNM, lymph node metastasis.

Figure 4 Sensitivity analysis for meta-analysis of (A) OS, (B) gender, (C) age, (D) tumor differentiation, (E) lymph node metastasis, and (F) TNM stage.

Chiou SH, Wang ML, Chou YT, et al. Coexpression of Oct4 and Nanog enhances malignancy in lung adenocarcinoma by inducing cancer stem cell-like properties and epithelial-mesenchymal transdifferentiation. Cancer Res. 2010;70(24):10433–10444. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-263821159654

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sun XD, Zong XF, Wang D. [Study on significance of expression of Nanog and Oct4 by using tissue chip technique in non-small cell lung cancer]. J Clin Expl Med. 2012;11(16):1258–1260. Chinese.

 Google Scholar

Li XQ, Yang XL, Zhang G, et al. Nuclear β-catenin accumulation is associated with increased expression of Nanog protein and predicts poor prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer. J Transl Med. 2013;11(1):114. doi:10.1186/1479-5876-11-11423648139

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Gialmanidis IP, Bravou V, Petrou I, et al. Expression of Bmi1, FoxF1, Nanog, and ᵧ-catenin in relation to hedgehog signaling pathway in human non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung. 2013;191(5):511–521. doi:10.1007/s00408-013-9490-423864317

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kirita K, Ishii G, Matsuwaki R, et al. Identification of biological properties of intralymphatic tumor related to the development of lymph node metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83537. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.008353724376714

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Luo MQ, Pu Q, Cao YL, et al. [Expression of Nanog in non-small cell lungcancer tissue]. J Zhengzhou Univ. 2013;48(6):758–761. Chinese.

 Google Scholar

Park E, Park SY, Sun PL, et al. Prognostic significance of stem cell-related marker expression and its correlation with histologic subtypes in lung adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7(27):42502–42512. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.989427285762

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Yao SM, He HY, Chen JL. [Correlations of Nanog expression in lung adenocarcinoma tissue with chemotherapy response and prognosis]. J Clin Res. 2016;33(12):2364–2367. Chinese.

 Google Scholar

Zhong CC [Expression and clinical significance of Nanog and Musashi1 in ES-NSCLC]. Thesis, Bengbu Medical College. 2016 Chinese.

 Google Scholar

Chang B, Park MJ, Choi SI, In KH, Kim CH, Lee SH. NANOG as an adverse predictive marker in advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Onco Targets Ther. 2017;10:4625–4633. doi:10.2147/OTT.S14489529033581

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar