AUTHOR=Zhou Cen , Zhong Xi , Song Yongxi , Shi Jinxin , Wu Zhonghua , Guo Zhexu , Sun Jie , Wang Zhenning 

TITLE=Prognostic Biomarkers for Gastric Cancer: An Umbrella Review of the Evidence

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Oncology

VOLUME=9

YEAR=2019

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2019.01321

DOI=10.3389/fonc.2019.01321

ISSN=2234-943X

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Introduction:</bold> Biomarkers are biological molecules entirely or partially participating in cancerous processes that function as measurable indicators of abnormal changes in the human body microenvironment. Aiming to provide an overview of associations between prognostic biomarkers and gastric cancer (GC), we performed this umbrella review analyzing currently available meta-analyses and grading the evidence depending on the credibility of their associations.</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> A systematic literature search was conducted by two independent investigators of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Databases to identify meta-analyses investigating associations between prognostic biomarkers and GC. The strength of evidence for prognostic biomarkers for GC were categorized into four grades: strong, highly suggestive, suggestive, and weak.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> Among 120 associations between prognostic biomarkers and GC survival outcomes, only one association, namely the association between platelet count and GC OS, was supported by strong evidence. Associations between FITC, CEA, NLR, foxp3+ Treg lymphocytes (both 1- and 3-year OS), CA 19-9, or VEGF and GC OS were supported by highly suggestive evidence. Four associations were considered suggestive and the remaining 108 associations were supported by weak or not suggestive evidence.</p><p><bold>Discussion:</bold> The association between platelet count and GC OS was supported by strong evidence. Associations between FITC, CEA, NLR, foxp3+ Treg lymphocytes (both 1- and 3-year OS), CA 19-9, or VEGF and GC OS were supported by highly suggestive evidence, however, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to inadequate methodological quality as deemed by AMSTAR 2.0.</p>