Bowen Zha1*
Xiaqin Zha- 1The Sixth Clinical Medical College, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
- 2The First Clinical Medical College, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
- 3Department of Blood Purification, University Affiliated Second Hospital, Nanchang, China
Aim: Provide an overview and a systematic evaluation of the evidence quality on the association between non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) and prognosis value for gastrointestinal cancers (GICs).
Methods: We searched the literature from three electronic databases: Pubmed, Embase, and Web of science, then carefully screened and extracted the primary information and results from the included articles. We use A measurable systematic review and meta-analysis evaluation tool (AMSTAR2) to evaluate the quality of methodology and then use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment 2, Development and Evaluation guideline (GRADE) make sure the reliability of the meta-analysis.
Results: Overall, 182 meta-analyses from 58 studies were included in this study. Most of these studies are of low or very low quality. Using the scoring tool, we found that only two meta-analyses were rated as high reliability, and 17 meta-analyses were rated as medium reliability.
Conclusions: Although ncRNA has good prognostic value in some studies, only a tiny amount of evidence is highly credible at present. More research is needed in the future.
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022382296.
Introduction
With the development of sequencing technology, more and more non-coding RNA has been found (1). NcRNA play an important role in maintaining cell homeostasis and performing multiple functions (2). A study based on colorectal cancer found that the deletion of junctional adhesion molecule A induced by MIR21 promoted the activation and metastasis of oncogenes (3). In addition, ncRNA can affect the body function by affecting other genes. For example, miR-137 can down-regulate glyoxalase 1, while another glyoxalase 1 can affect the immune response (4, 5). Recent study suggests that ncRNA can also affect the occurrence and development of gastric cancer by affecting epigenetics (6).
And now there have been study to develop ncRNA drugs for the targeted treatment of neurodegenerative diseases (7). Some other drugs are also being actively developed (8). In terms of gastrointestinal cancer, a study in 2021 recommended three miRNA molecules as potential therapeutic targets (9). Another study suggests that part of ncRNA can be used as chemosensitivity regulator to assist patients in chemotherapy (10). Moreover, some stable ncRNA are also used to predict the prognosis of the disease (11, 12).
Gastrointestinal tumors (GICs), such as colorectal cancer (CRC), esophageal cancer (EC), stomach cancer (SC), liver cancer (LC), and pancreas cancer (PC), are the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide (13). At present, many studies have revealed the prognostic effect of some ncRNA on GICs (14, 15). And some meta-analysis on the prognostic effect of ncRNA on GICs has been published (16). We aim to make regression evaluations, find high-quality evidence, and provide a basis for future research.
Methods
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (17), and the study protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42022382296).
Search strategy
We search literature from Pubmed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Search time is from the establishment of the database to January 2023. The details of search words are listed in Supplementary Table 1. Then we manually searched for references of relevant articles to identify potentially eligible studies. Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts. If there were any differences, we would discuss them until achieving a consensus.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria were as follows (1): assessing the role of ncRNA in the prognosis of GIC (2); providing at least one prognostic outcome data (overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and recurrence-free survival) (3); containing meta-analysis in the study.
The exclusion criteria were as follows (1): focus on genetics or experiments not in humans (2); full-text not available (3); lack critical information.
If two or more eligible studies evaluate the prognostic value of the same ncRNA for the same disease, we will include the largest number of original studies.
Data extraction
The first author, year of publication, journal, disease, kind of ncRNA, number of studies, total population, results, and tools for assessing the risk of bias were extracted. At the same time, we extract the number of studies, number of participants, relative risk, P value, I2, effect model, and publication bias in each meta-analysis. If the study carries out subgroup analysis according to the types of ncRNA, we will extract the relevant results. Two researchers independently extracted the data and cross-verified it.
Evaluation of the quality of the study
A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) is a questionnaire that asks reviewers to answer ‘yes,’ ‘partly yes,’ or ‘no’ (18). Among the total 16 items, seven items are considered the most important when assessing the quality of meta-analyses: registration in advance, reasonable search strategy, reasonable exclusion of literature, adoption of appropriate bias evaluation tools, selection of appropriate statistical methods, consideration of the impact of bias on results, and consideration of potential bias risks of articles. In the study, we viewed two ‘part yes’ as one ‘yes.’ According to the evaluation of 16 items, the final results are evaluated as high, moderate, low, or critically low. Two researchers independently evaluate the quality and cross-verified it. For visual display, we use Python to make forest maps to reveal the prognostic value of ncRNAs to GICs.
Grading of the evidence of meta-analysis
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methods propose five factors rating down certainty in the evidence (the risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias) and two factors rating up certainty in the evidence (large effect and dose-response) (19, 20). Based on GRADE, outcomes are evaluated as high, moderate, low, or very low quality. As for prognostic studies, the quality of evidence was high, and we downgraded and upgraded them by five rating down factors and two rating up factors, respectively (21). Only the standardized, systematic evaluation of research reports is suitable for grading the results, so we do not grade the research results rated as extremely low quality by ASMTAR2. Two researchers completed this step independently. Moreover, the results were shown by corresponding scales using Python.
Results
Study selection
Overall, 1218 articles were retrieved from three databases. After removing 742 duplicates and screening the titles and abstracts, 171 articles were identified. A further 113 articles were excluded during the full-text reading for the following reasons: 13 articles had no relevant outcome, 21 articles did not perform a meta-analysis, 4 studies have no full text, and 75 articles discussed the same topic. Ultimately, 58 studies were included in this umbrella review. As shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Flowchart of systematic review and meta-analysis selection.
Colorectal cancer
CRC is a research hotspot. There are 25 studies to analyze the prognostic value of ncRNA for CRC (22–46). One study analyzed circRNAs, while Another study analyzed ciR-7 separately (36, 42). One study included 42 original studies for meta-analysis for lncRNA (25), and the remaining seven studies were analyzed for different lncRNA. In addition, 23 different miRNAs were analyzed in 15 studies. Details can be found in Table 1, Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 1.
Table 1 Characteristics of the prognosis meta-analyses with methodological quality. .
Of the 25 studies, ten were considered critically low methodological quality. The main defects are no protocol or guidance literature and insufficient consideration of the risk of bias included in the study. We further use GRADE to evaluate the meta-analysis of the remaining studies. Among them, lncRNA HOTAIR is considered highly credible, and it has no serious problems in the five degradation factors. It has an upgrade factor of a large magnitude of effect. While circRNA(up), ciRs-7, lncRNA CRNDE, lncRNA UCA1, miR-124, and miR-203 are considered moderate credibility, they have one or two problems in reducing factors. At the same time, circRNA(down), lncRNA MALAT1, and miR-133 are considered to have low credibility. Other studies have extremely low credibility. The detailed evaluation process is in the Supplementary Materials.
MiR-203 has no significant relationship with CRC in the medium or high-reliability meta-analysis. The other six analyses have a significant relationship, as shown in Supplementary Table 3.
Esophagus cancer
Seven studies have reported the prognostic value of ncRNA for EC, including four reports of lncRNA, two reports of miRNA, and one report of circRNA (25, 28, 47–51). Two study made subgroup analyses of lncRNA and miRNA, respectively, and analyzed their prognostic value according to the types of ncRNA (47, 49). Details can be found in Table 1, Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 2.
According to ASMTAR2, one study was considered critically low quality because two important indicators have not been met (28). Other studies further evaluate the credibility of their meta-analysis according GRADE. Among them, circRNAs, lncRNA HOTAR, lncRNA AK001796, lncRNA Casc9, and lncRNA MEG3 are considered as moderate credibility. Although they have problems in continuity or directness, they are rated as medium because of large magnitude of effect. LncRNA MEG3 was negatively correlated with EC prognosis, and the other four were positively correlated with EC prognosis. In addition, lncRNA Linc00460, lncRNA PCAT-1 and lncRNA UCA1 are considered to be of low reliability. The other 25 meta-analyses are of extremely low reliability. The detailed evaluation process is in the Supplementary Materials.
Stomach cancer
As another research hotspot, 23 studies about SC were included in this study (25, 27, 36, 44–46, 52–68). Two studies related to circRNA (36, 53). One study conducted a detailed subgroup analysis according to the types of lncRNAs (55), and other eight studies also analyzed different lncRNAs. The remaining 11 studies are all related to miRNA. Fifteen studies used NOS to evaluate the quality of included literature, and eight studies used other methods or were not reported. Details can be found in Table 1, Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 3.
Due to the failure to meet the requirements of some critical items, only 12 studies were rated as low quality or above. After carefully using GRADE, we found that circRNAs (up), circRNAs (down), ciRs-7, and lncRNA PVT1 were considered moderately credible. Among them, circRNAs (down) are negatively correlated with the prognosis of SC, while other ncRNAs are positively correlated with the prognosis of SC. Meta-analysis without high-level credibility. MiR-125a, miR-125b, and miR-145 are rated as extremely low credibility, and their evidence is insufficient. Other meta-analyses are low credibility. The detailed evaluation process is in the Supplementary Materials.
Liver cancer
Seven studies each reported the prognostic value of miRNA and lncRNA for LC (27, 37, 44, 45, 60, 69–77), and one reported the circRNA (78). Among them, one study included the most original research, including 29 original studies for meta-analysis (75). Details can be found in Table 1, Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 4.
Five studies were considered to be of critically low quality. One study did not meet one unimportant item but met the other 15 items, so it was considered high quality. The remaining nine studies were of low quality. In the reliability evaluation of meta-analysis, although there are some problems in precision, lncRNA SNHG16 is rated as high reliability because it meets the upgrade conditions. circRNAs(up) is considered as moderate credibility. The remaining ten meta-analyses are of low or extremely low reliability. The detailed evaluation process is in the Supplementary Materials.
Pancreas cancer
Two studies have reported the prognostic value of lncRNA for PC respectively (27, 71). At the same time, four other studies reported the situation of miRNA (38, 45, 70, 79). At present, we have not found any research on circRNA. Details can be found in Table 1, Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 5.
Four studies were rated as low quality and above. According to GRADE, only miR-21 was rated as medium quality, and the other 20 meta-analyses were rated as low quality or extremely low quality due to different degradation factors. The detailed evaluation process is in the Supplementary Materials.
Discussion
With the development of gene technology, the treatment of cancer patients has been improved (80, 81). Immunotherapy plays a vital role in cancer treatment (82–84). Recent studies suggest that some ncRNA is related to the immune infiltration of various tumors (85, 86). NcRNA can be used not only as a potential target site, but also as a prognostic indicator.
Among the fifty-eight included studies, one and three were rated as high and moderate quality, 32 were graded as low quality, and 22 were evaluated as critically low quality. For detail of items, no meta-analysis discussed the fund of original studies, while most articles were best done in stem one and item sixteen. The main flaw of included prognostic studies was no protocol or guidance literature. The details can be found in Figure 2 and Supplementary Table 3.
Figure 2 Evaluation of the methodological quality with AMSTAR2.
Apart from critically low-rate studies, we evaluated 91 meta-analyses in the 36 other studies by GRADE. Two meta-analyses were graded as high, 17 were rated as moderate, 21 were supported by low, and 51 meta-analyses presented very low evidence. For down factors, the main flaw of meta-analyses was publication bias, and the best item in the research was inconsistency. As for up factors, part of the meta-analyses met the item of the large magnitude of effect. The prognosis meta-analysis with high or moderate credibility is shown in Table 2. The details can be found in Figure 3 and Supplementary Table 4.
Table 2 Main findings of the prognosis meta-analysis with high or moderate credibility.
Figure 3 Evaluation of the outcome quality with GRADE.
This review is the first attempt to evaluate the published evidence about the prognosis of ncRNAs for GICs. The PRISMA principle is strictly followed in this study in the analysis process. The critical steps of the research, such as literature retrieval, information extraction, article evaluation, and result grading, are all handled by two authors in a double-blind way to reduce subjective differences.
This study has the following limitations. First, the sample sources, detection methods, and critical values of some original studies included in the meta-analysis differ. In this regard, the limited number of studies makes it difficult for us to conduct subgroup analysis, which can only reduce their credibility. Secondly, we only included the research published in the database and did not consider other literature sources. Thirdly, some studies combined ncRNA with other prognostic markers, which we failed to consider in depth in the article.
Conclusion
The existing evidence shows that part of ncRNA has high prognostic value for GICs. However, on the whole, most of the evidence at present has low credibility. Limited by research quality, heterogeneity, and small research effect. Further research is needed to overcome the limitations of existing evidence.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
XZ and BZ designed the study. YL and MK performed the literature search and selected eligible articles. BZ and MK extracted the data. YL and XZ analyzed the data. BZ wrote the first draft of the manuscript and edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2023.1193665/full#supplementary-material
Abbreviations
AMSTAR2, A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2; CircRNA, circular RNA; CRC, colorectal cancer; DFS, Disease free-survival; EC, Esophageal carcinoma; GIC, Gastrointestinal cancer; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; LC, liver carcinoma; LncRNA, long ncRNA; MiRNA, microRNAs; NcRNA, Non-coding RNA; NOS, The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; OS, Overall survival; PC, pancreatic cancer; PRISMA, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis; QUADAS-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2; RFS, Recurrence-free survival; SC, stomach cancer.
References
1. Anastasiadou E, Jacob LS, Slack FJ. Non-coding RNA networks in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer (2018) 18(1):5–18. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2017.99
2. Ratti M, Lampis A, Ghidini M, Salati M, Mirchev MB, Valeri N, et al. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) as new tools for cancer therapy: first steps from bench to bedside. Target Oncol (2020) 15(3):261–78. doi: 10.1007/s11523-020-00717-x
3. Lampis A, Hahne JC, Gasparini P, Cascione L, Hedayat S, Vlachogiannis G, et al. MIR21-induced loss of junctional adhesion molecule a promotes activation of oncogenic pathways, progression and metastasis in colorectal cancer. Cell Death Differ (2021) 28(10):2970–82. doi: 10.1038/s41418-021-00820-0
4. Du F, Li Y, Shen J, Zhao Y, Kaboli PJ, Xiang S, et al. Glyoxalase 1 gene improves the antistress capacity and reduces the immune inflammatory response. BMC Genet (2019) 20(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s12863-019-0795-z
5. Lv N, Hao S, Luo C, Abukiwan A, Hao Y, Gai F, et al. miR-137 inhibits melanoma cell proliferation through downregulation of GLO1. Sci China Life Sci (2018) 61(5):541–9. doi: 10.1007/s11427-017-9138-9
6. Yang Q, Chen Y, Guo R, Dai Y, Tang L, Zhao Y, et al. Interaction of ncRNA and epigenetic modifications in gastric cancer: focus on histone modification. Front Oncol (2021) 11:822745. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.822745
7. Adams D, Gonzalez-Duarte A, O’Riordan WD, Yang CC, Ueda M, Kristen AV, et al. Patisiran, an RNAi therapeutic, for hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. N Engl J Med (2018) 379(1):11–21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716153
8. Slack FJ, Chinnaiyan AM. The role of non-coding RNAs in oncology. Cell (2019) 179(5):1033–55. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.017
9. Zhang H, Li M, Kaboli PJ, Ji H, Du F, Wu X, et al. Identification of cluster of differentiation molecule-associated microRNAs as potential therapeutic targets for gastrointestinal cancer immunotherapy. Int J Biol Markers (2021) 36(2):22–32. doi: 10.1177/17246008211005473
10. Carotenuto P, Amato F, Lampis A, Rae C, Hedayat S, Previdi MC, et al. Modulation of pancreatic cancer cell sensitivity to FOLFIRINOX through microRNA-mediated regulation of DNA damage. Nat Commun (2021) 12(1):6738. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27099-6
11. Imaoka H, Toiyama Y, Okigami M, Yasuda H, Saigusa S, Ohi M, et al. Circulating microRNA-203 predicts metastases, early recurrence, and poor prognosis in human gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer (2016) 19(3):744–53. doi: 10.1007/s10120-015-0521-0
12. Toiyama Y, Hur K, Tanaka K, Inoue Y, Kusunoki M, Boland CR, et al. Serum miR-200c is a novel prognostic and metastasis-predictive biomarker in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg (2014) 259(4):735–43. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a6909d
13. Grady WM, Yu M, Markowitz SD. Epigenetic alterations in the gastrointestinal tract: current and emerging use for biomarkers of cancer. Gastroenterology (2021) 160(3):690–709. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.058
14. Ren A, Dong Y, Tsoi H, Yu J. Detection of miRNA as non-invasive biomarkers of colorectal cancer. Int J Mol Sci (2015) 16(2):2810–23. doi: 10.3390/ijms16022810
15. Hao YJ, Yang CY, Chen MH, Chang LW, Lin CP, Lo LC, et al. Potential values of circulating microRNA-21 to predict early recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer after treatments. J Clin Med (2022) 11(9). doi: 10.3390/jcm11092400
16. Carter JV, Galbraith NJ, Yang D, Burton JF, Walker SP, Galandiuk S. Blood-based microRNAs as biomarkers for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J cancer (2017) 116(6):762–74. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.12
17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (2021) 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
18. De Santis KK, Lorenz RC, Lakeberg M, Matthias K. The application of AMSTAR2 in 32 overviews of systematic reviews of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders: a cross-sectional study. Res Synth Methods (2022) 13(4):424–33. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1532
19. Gopalakrishna G, Mustafa RA, Davenport C, Scholten RJ, Hyde C, Brozek J, et al. Applying grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) to diagnostic tests was challenging but doable. J Clin Epidemiol (2014) 67(7):760–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.006
20. Foroutan F, Guyatt G, Zuk V, Vandvik PO, Alba AC, Mustafa R, et al. GRADE guidelines 28: use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks. J Clin Epidemiol (2020) 121:62–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.023
21. Sun ML, Yang ZY, Wu QJ, Li YZ, Li XY, Liu FH, et al. The role of human epididymis protein 4 in the diagnosis and prognosis of diseases: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Front Med (2022) 9:842002. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.842002
22. Chen S, Zhang C, Feng M. Prognostic value of LncRNA HOTAIR in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Open Med (Warsaw Poland) (2020) 15:76–83. doi: 10.1515/med-2020-0012
23. Gao S, Zhao ZY, Wu R, Zhang Y, Zhang ZY. Prognostic value of microRNAs in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Cancer Manage Res (2018) 10:907–29. doi: 10.2147/cmar.S157493
24. He TY, Li SH, Huang J, Gong M, Li G. Prognostic value of long non-coding RNA CRNDE in gastrointestinal cancers: a meta-analysis. Cancer Manage Res (2019) 11:5629–42. doi: 10.2147/cmar.S201646
25. Kang W, Zheng Q, Lei J, Chen C, Yu C. Prognostic value of long noncoding RNAs in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Markers (2018) 2018:5340894. doi: 10.1155/2018/5340894
26. Li C, Yan G, Yin L, Liu T, Li C, Wang L. Prognostic roles of microRNA 143 and microRNA 145 in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Biol Markers (2019) 34(1):6–14. doi: 10.1177/1724600818807492
27. Li D, Wang R, Wu N, Yu Y. LncRNA HULC as a potential predictor of prognosis and clinicopathological features in patients with digestive system tumors: a meta-analysis. Aging (2022) 14(4):1797–811. doi: 10.18632/aging.203903
28. Li P, Cao W, Ding R, Cheng M, Xu X, Chen S, et al. Expression and prognostic significance of metastasis-associated protein 1 in gastrointestinal cancer. Front Oncol (2020) 10:542330. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.542330
29. Liu X, Liu X, Qiao T, Chen W. Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of long non-coding RNA UCA1 in colorectal cancer: results from a meta-analysis. Medicine (2019) 98(48):e18031. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000018031
30. Moody L, Dvoretskiy S, An R, Mantha S, Pan YX. The efficacy of miR-20a as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (2019) 11(8). doi: 10.3390/cancers11081111.
31. Peng Q, Cheng M, Li T, Chen X, Shen Y, Zhu Y, et al. Integrated characterization and validation of the prognostic significance of microRNA-200s in colorectal cancer. Cancer Cell Int (2020) 20:56. doi: 10.1186/s12935-020-1142-1
32. Peng Q, Feng Z, Shen Y, Zhu J, Zou L, Shen Y, et al. Integrated analyses of microRNA-29 family and the related combination biomarkers demonstrate their widespread influence on risk, recurrence, metastasis and survival outcome in colorectal cancer. Cancer Cell Int (2019) 19:181. doi: 10.1186/s12935-019-0907-x
33. Peng Q, Shen Y, Zhao P, Cheng M, Zhu Y, Xu B. Biomarker roles identification of miR-106 family for predicting the risk and poor survival of colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer (2020) 20(1):506. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-06863-9
34. Peng Q, Yao W, Yu C, Zou L, Shen Y, Zhu Y, et al. Identification of microRNA-181 as a promising biomarker for predicting the poor survival in colorectal cancer. Cancer Med (2019) 8(13):5995–6009. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2520
35. Sur D, Burz C, Sabarimurugan S, Irimie A. Diagnostic and prognostic significance of MiR-150 in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pers Med (2020) 10(3). doi: 10.3390/jpm10030099
36. Tian G, Li G, Guan L, Wang Z, Li N. Prognostic value of circular RNA ciRS-7 in various cancers: a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. BioMed Res Int (2020) 2020:1487609. doi: 10.1155/2020/1487609
37. Wang C, Zhang Q, Hu Y, Zhu J, Yang J. Emerging role of long non-coding RNA MALAT1 in predicting clinical outcomes of patients with digestive system malignancies: a meta-analysis. Oncol letters (2019) 17(2):2159–70. doi: 10.3892/ol.2018.9875
38. Xiang Z, Sun M, Yuan Z, Zhang C, Jiang J, Huang S, et al. Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of microRNA-494 overexpression in cancers: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget (2018) 9(1):1279–90. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.22633
39. Yang FR, Li HJ, Li TT, Zhao YF, Liu ZK, Li XR. Prognostic value of MicroRNA-15a in human cancers: a meta-analysis and bioinformatics. BioMed Res Int (2019), 2063823. doi: 10.1155/2019/2063823
40. Ye H, Hao H, Wang J, Chen R, Huang Z. miR-203 as a novel biomarker for the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. OncoTargets Ther (2017) 10:3685–96. doi: 10.2147/ott.S134252
41. Yu C, Wan H, Shan R, Wen W, Li J, Luo D, et al. The prognostic value of the MiR-200 family in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis with 1882 patients. J Cancer (2019) 10(17):4009–16. doi: 10.7150/jca.27529
42. Yuan J, Guo D, Li X, Chen J. Prognostic and diagnostic value of circRNA expression in colorectal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. BMC cancer (2020) 20(1):448. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-06932-z
43. Zhang T, Wu DM, Deng SH, Han R, Liu T, Li J, et al. Integrated analysis reveals that long non-coding RNA TUBA4B can be used as a prognostic biomarker in various cancers. Cell Physiol Biochem: Int J Exp Cell Physiol Biochem Pharmacol (2018) 49(2):530–44. doi: 10.1159/000492991
44. Zhang Y, Guo CC, Guan DH, Yang CH, Jiang YH. Prognostic value of microRNA-224 in various cancers: a meta-analysis. Arch Med Res (2017) 48(5):472–82. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2017.11.002
45. Zhou Z, Lv J, Wang J, Yu H, Lu H, Yuan B, et al. Role of MicroRNA-124 as a prognostic factor in multiple neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Dis Markers (2019) 2019:1654780. doi: 10.1155/2019/1654780
46. Zhu W, Ji X. The impact of MicroRNA-133a on prognosis and clinicopathological parameters for digestive system cancers: a comprehensive study based on meta-analysis and TCGA database. Pathol Oncol Res: POR (2020) 26(2):771–81. doi: 10.1007/s12253-019-00619-y
47. Gao S, Zhao ZY, Zhang ZY, Zhang Y, Wu R. Prognostic value of MicroRNAs in esophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Clin Trans Gastroenterol (2018) 9(11):203. doi: 10.1038/s41424-018-0070-z
48. Guo C, Mi J, Li H, Su P, Nie H. Dysregulated circular RNAs as novel biomarkers in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Cancer Med (2021) 10(22):7895–908. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3703
49. Qian P, Xu Z, Chen H, Yue S, Lv Y. Abnormally expressed lncRNAs in the prognosis and clinicopathology of oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Genet (2020) 99:43. doi: 10.1007/s12041-020-01203-z
50. Song W, Zou SB. Prognostic role of lncRNA HOTAIR in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Clinica chimica acta; Int J Clin Chem (2016) 463:169–73. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2016.10.035
51. Wang P, Xu L, Li L, Ren S, Tang J, Zhang M, et al. The microRNA-375 as a potentially promising biomarker to predict the prognosis of patients with head and neck or esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Eur Arch oto-rhino-laryngology (2019) 276(4):957–68. doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05325-8
52. Amiri-Dashatan N, Koushki M, Naghi-Zadeh M, Razzaghi MR, Mohaghegh Shalmani H. Prognostic value of microRNA-125a/b family in patients with gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Hepatol bed to bench (2021) 14(Suppl1):S1–s9.
53. Chen H, Liang C, Wang X, Liu Y, Yang Z, Shen M, et al. The prognostic value of circRNAs for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med (2020) 9(23):9096–106. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3497
54. Duan F, Li Y, Feng Y, Niu G, Chai J, Wang K. Increased lncRNA AFAP1-AS1 expression predicts poor prognosis in gastric cancer: evidence from published studies and followed up verification. Cancer Med (2023) 12(4):4227–35. doi: 10.1002/cam4.5287
55. Gao S, Zhao ZY, Wu R, Zhang Y, Zhang ZY. Prognostic value of long noncoding RNAs in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. OncoTargets Ther (2018) 11:4877–91. doi: 10.2147/ott.S169823
56. Guo H, Wang Y, Wang Z, Wang Z, Xue S. The diagnostic and prognostic value of miR-92a in gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Med (Warsaw Poland) (2021) 16(1):1386–94. doi: 10.1515/med-2021-0347
57. Hao J, Yuan B, Gou Y, Ma J, Huang X. Prognostic value of lncRNA PVT1 for patients with gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis markers (2021), 5595965. doi: 10.1155/2021/5595965
58. Huang ZS, Guo XW, Zhang G, Liang LX, Nong B. The diagnostic and prognostic value of miR-200c in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Markers (2019) 2019:8949618. doi: 10.1155/2019/8949618
59. Mei L, Lu Z, Shen Z, Xu S. The prognostic and diagnostic values of MicroRNA-10b in gastric cancer: a comprehensive study based on meta-analysis and TCGA database. Medicine (2020) 99(23):e20508. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000020508
60. Peng Z, Duan F, Yin J, Feng Y, Yang Z, Shang J. Prognostic values of microRNA-130 family expression in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis and database test. J Trans Med (2019) 17(1):347. doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-2093-y
61. Pop-Bica C, Pintea S, Cojocneanu-Petric R, Del Sal G, Piazza S, Wu ZH, et al. MiR-181 family-specific behavior in different cancers: a meta-analysis view. Cancer Metastasis Rev (2018) 37(1):17–32. doi: 10.1007/s10555-017-9714-9
62. Wang Z, Cai Q, Jiang Z, Liu B, Zhu Z, Li C. Prognostic role of microRNA-21 in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monitor (2014), 20:1668–74. doi: 10.12659/msm.892096
63. Xu L, Zhang Y, Tang J, Wang P, Li L, Yan X, et al. The prognostic value and regulatory mechanisms of microRNA-145 in various tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2019) 28(5):867–81. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.Epi-18-0570
64. Ye H, Zhu W, Mei L, Lu Z. Prognostic and clinicopathologic significance of MicroRNA-125a-5p in cancers: a meta-analysis. Medicine (2019) 98(31):e16685. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000016685
65. Zhang G, Wang Y, Han X, Lu T, Fu L, Jin H, et al. FOXP4-AS1 may be a potential prognostic biomarker in human cancers: a meta-analysis and bioinformatics analysis. Front Oncol (2022) 12:799265. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.799265
66. Zhang Y, Guan DH, Bi RX, Xie J, Yang CH, Jiang YH. Prognostic value of microRNAs in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget (2017) 8(33):55489–510. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.18590
67. Zhang Y, Wang LJ, Li WF, Zhang X, Yang XJ. The prognostic value of HOTAIR for predicting long-term prognosis of patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Medicine (2018) 97(26):e11139. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000011139
68. Zhong Y, Zhao M, Yu Y, Li Q, Wang F, Wu P, et al. Prognostic value and therapeutic potential of the long noncoding RNA TP73-AS1 in cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep (2020) 10(1):9053. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65726-2
69. Abdeahad H, Avan A, Pashirzad M, Khazaei M, Soleimanpour S, Ferns GA, et al. The prognostic potential of long noncoding RNA HOTAIR expression in human digestive system carcinomas: a meta-analysis. J Cell Physiol (2019) 234(7):10926–33. doi: 10.1002/jcp.27918
70. Huang GL, Sun J, Lu Y, Liu Y, Cao H, Zhang H, et al. MiR-200 family and cancer: from a meta-analysis view. Mol aspects Med (2019) 70:57–71. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2019.09.005
71. Liu FT, Dong Q, Gao H, Zhu ZM. The prognostic significance of UCA1 for predicting clinical outcome in patients with digestive system malignancies. Oncotarget (2017) 8(25):40620–32. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16534
72. Liu Q, Gao P, Li Q, Xu C, Qu K, Zhang J. Long non-coding RNA SNHG16 as a potential biomarker in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Medicine (2021) 100(36):e27178. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000027178
73. Liu W, Hu K, Zhang F, Lu S, Chen R, Ren Z, et al. The prognostic significance of microRNA-221 in hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Int J Biol Markers (2021) 36(2):17246008211032689. doi: 10.1177/17246008211032689
74. Shao Y, Gu W, Ning Z, Song X, Pei H, Jiang J. Evaluating the prognostic value of microRNA-203 in solid tumors based on a meta-analysis and the cancer genome atlas (TCGA) datasets. Cell Physiol Biochem (2017) 41(4):1468–80. doi: 10.1159/000470649
75. Wang L, Sheng J, Zhang H, Xie B, Xiang L, Liu D, et al. The association between long noncoding RNA over expression and poor prognosis of liver cancer: a meta-analysis. J Healthcare Eng (2021), 1395131. doi: 10.1155/2021/1395131
76. Zhang Y, Li Y, Jiang W, Li Q, Lan Y. The clinical significance of microRNA-122 in predicting the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis validated by the cancer genome atlas dataset. Medicine (2019) 98(13):e14810. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000014810
77. Zhu S, Shuai P, Yang C, Zhang Y, Zhong S, Liu X, et al. Prognostic value of long non-coding RNA PVT1 as a novel biomarker in various cancers: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget (2017) 8(68):113174–84. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.22830
78. Hao Q, Han Y, Xia W, Wang Q, Qian H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of circular RNAs as biomarkers of hepatocellular carcinoma. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol (2019) 2019:1684039. doi: 10.1155/2019/1684039
79. Zhao F, Wei C, Cui MY, Xia QQ, Wang SB, Zhang Y. Prognostic value of microRNAs in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis. Aging (2020) 12(10):9380–404. doi: 10.18632/aging.103214
80. van de Haar J, Ma X, Ooft SN, van der Helm PW, Hoes LR, Mainardi S, et al. Codon-specific KRAS mutations predict survival benefit of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer. Nat Med (2023) 29(3):605–14. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02240-8
81. Xiang S, Li J, Shen J, Zhao Y, Wu X, Li M, et al. Identification of prognostic genes in the tumor microenvironment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Front Immunol (2021) 12:653836. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.653836
82. Wang F, Zheng A, Zhang D, Zou T, Xiao M, Chen J, et al. Molecular profiling of core immune-escape genes highlights LCK as an immune-related prognostic biomarker in melanoma. Front Immunol (2022) 13:1024931. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1024931
83. Kaboli PJ, Zhang L, Xiang S, Shen J, Li M, Zhao Y, et al. Molecular markers of regulatory T cells in cancer immunotherapy with special focus on acute myeloid leukemia (AML) - a systematic review. Curr Med Chem (2020) 27(28):4673–98. doi: 10.2174/0929867326666191004164041
84. Angerilli V, Fontana E, Lonardi S, Sbaraglia M, Borelli B, Munari G, et al. Intratumor morphologic and transcriptomic heterogeneity in (V600E)BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal adenocarcinomas. ESMO Open (2021) 6(4):100211. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100211
85. Huang LA, Lin C, Yang L. Plumbing mysterious RNAs in “dark genome” for the conquest of human diseases. Mol Ther (2023) 31(6):1577–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2023.05.003
Keywords: ncRNA, gastrointestinal cancers, prognosis, umbrella review, miRNA
Citation: Zha B, Luo Y, Kamili M and Zha X (2023) Non-coding RNAs and gastrointestinal cancers prognosis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Front. Oncol. 13:1193665. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1193665
Received: 25 March 2023; Accepted: 03 July 2023;
Published: 20 July 2023.
Edited by:
Yusuf Tutar, University of Health Sciences, TürkiyeReviewed by:
Tao Yi, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, ChinaJens Hahne, Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), United Kingdom
Copyright © 2023 Zha, Luo, Kamili and Zha. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Bowen Zha, zhabw@foxmail.com