BACKGROUND: MiRNAs are important regulators of different biological processes, including tumorigenesis. MiR-210 is a potential prognostic factor for survival in patients with cancer according to previous clinical researches. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the significance of increased miR-210 expression in the prognosis of indicated cancers. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The present systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 researches included 1809 patients with 7 different types of cancers from 7 countries, and aimed to explore the association between miR-210 expression and the survival of cancer patients. Over-expression of miR-210 may predict poor overall survival (OS, HR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.85-2.09, P = 0.210), but the effect was not significant. While the predictive effect on disease-free survival (DFS, HR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.30-2.74, P = 0.001), progression-free survival (PFS, HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.05-1.38, P = 0.007) and relapse-free survival(RFS, HR = 4.42, 95% CI: 2.14-9.15, P = 0.000) for patients with breast cancer, primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), renal cancer, soft-tissue sarcoma, pediatric osteosarcoma, bladder cancer or glioblastoma was certain. Subgroup analysis showed the limited predictive effect of over-expressed miR-210 on breast cancer OS (HR = 1.63, 95% CI: 0.47-5.67, P = 0.443), breast cancer DFS (HR = 2.03, 95% CI: 0.90-4.57, P = 0.088), sarcoma OS (HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.20-7.89, P = 0.818) and renal cancer OS (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.27-4.94, P = 0.842). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that miR-210 has a predictive effect on survival of patients with studied cancer types as indexed by disease-free survival, progression-free survival and relapse-free survival. While the predictive effect on overall survival, breast cancer overall survival, breast cancer disease-free survival, sarcoma overall survival and renal cancer overall survival was not statistically significant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: