Evidence Hub

Predicting fibroblast activation protein overexpression in the overall survival rate of cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

M. Janani, Amirhoushang Poorkhani, Mirmohammadhosseinaali Sharifiandavaei, Zahra Akbari, K. Pourkhalili, Saeed Golfiroozi, T. Amiriani, Arash Tahmasebifar et al.

Systematic Reviews, 2025

3 citations

Abstract

Fibroblast activation protein-alpha (FAP-α) is a vital surface marker of cancer-associated fibroblasts, and its high expression is associated with distant metastasis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to predict the role of FAP-α overexpression in the overall survival rate of cancer patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis were first performed on studies published in online databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences, based on the PRISMA framework. We focused on all cancer patients with reported FAP-α expression levels and survival rate outcomes. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and data extraction, and discrepancies were resolved through group discussion. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were then calculated by the fixed-effect and random-effects models to determine the association between FAP-α with crude HR (univariable), adjusted HR (multivariable), progression-free survival, and disease-free survival. Forty-one studies were included in the systematic review, and 25 were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that high FAP-α expression was associated with the pooled HR for overall survival (HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.19–1.85, P < 0.001) and HR of 1.53 in studies that reported the adjusted effect of high FAP-α expression on overall survival (HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.16–2.03, P = 0.003), and HR of 1.36 for disease-free survival (HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.750–2.469, P = 0.31). In addition, lymph node metastasis and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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