| Title |
Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha in lung cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Medical Science, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11596-016-1586-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheng-li Yang, Quan-guang Ren, Lu Wen, Jian-li Hu |
| Abstract |
Hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α) plays a vital role in the initiation, evaluation and prognosis in lung cancer. The prognostic value of HIF-1α reported in diverse study remains disputable. Accordingly, a meta-analysis was implemented to further understand the prognostic role of HIF-1α in lung cancer. The relationship between HIF-1α and the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of lung cancer were investigated by a meta-analysis. PubMed and Embase were searched from their inception to January 2015 for observational studies. Fixed-effects or random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of different comparisons. A total of 20 studies met the criteria. The results showed that HIF-1α expression in lung cancer tissues was significantly higher than that in normal lung tissues. Expression of HIF-1α in patients with squamous cell carcinoma was significantly higher than that of patients with adenocarcinomas. Similarly, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients had higher HIF-1α expression than small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients. Moreover, lymph node metastasized tissues had higher HIF-1α expression than non-lymph node metastasized tissues. A high level HIF-1α expression was well correlated with the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor in the NSCLC. Notably, NSCLC or SCLC patients with positive HIF-1α expression in tumor tissues had lower overall survival rate than patients with negative HIF-1α expression. It was suggested that HIF-1α expression may be a prognostic biomarker and a potential therapeutic target for lung cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Current Medical Science
#409
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,892
of 370,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Medical Science
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.