Evidence Hub

Long non-coding RNA XIST predicts worse prognosis in digestive system tumors: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Xuefang Liu, Xin-Liang Ming, W. Jing, P. Luo, Nandi Li, Man Zhu, Ming-Xia Yu, Chun-Zi Liang et al.

Bioscience Reports, 2018

920 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

Increasing studies are indicating that long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) X-inactive specific transcript (XIST) is associated with the prognosis of cancer patients. However, the results have been disputed. Therefore, we aimed to further explore the prognostic value and clinical significance of XIST in various types of cancers. Then, we focussed our research on the comparison of the predictive value of XIST between digestive system tumors and non-digestive system tumors. We performed a systematic search by looking up PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline (up to 3 January 2018). Fifteen studies which matched our inclusion criteria with a total of 920 patients for overall survival and 867 patients for clinicopathological characteristics were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to summarize the effects. Our results suggested that high expression levels of XIST were associated with unfavorable overall survival in cancer patients (pooled HR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.45–2.26). Additionally, we found that XIST was more valuable in digestive system tumors (pooled HR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.73–2.92) than in non-digestive system tumors (pooled HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.60–2.45). Furthermore, elevated expression levels of XIST were connected with distant metastasis and tumor stage. XIST was correlated with poor prognosis, which suggested that XIST might serve as a novel…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 920 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free