Research Papers:

Role of Dicer as a prognostic predictor for survival in cancer patients: a systematic review with a meta-analysis

Wanying Shan, Chaoyang Sun, Bo Zhou, Ensong Guo, Hao Lu, Meng Xia, Kezhen Li, Danhui Weng, Xingguang Lin, Li Meng, Ding Ma and Gang Chen _

PDF  |  HTML  |  Supplementary Files  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2016; 7:72672-72684. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.12183

Metrics: PDF 3713 views  |   HTML 2961 views  |   ?  


Wanying Shan1,*, Chaoyang Sun1,*, Bo Zhou1,*, Ensong Guo1, Hao Lu1, Meng Xia1, Kezhen Li1, Danhui Weng1, Xingguang Lin1, Li Meng1, Ding Ma1 and Gang Chen1

1 Cancer Biology Medical Centre, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, P.R.China

* These authors have contributed equally to this manuscript

Correspondence to:

Ma Ding, email:

Chen Gang, email:

Keywords: Dicer, cancer, prognosis, hazard ratio, meta-analysis

Received: November 28, 2015 Accepted: September 12, 2016 Published: September 21, 2016


Objective: The role of Dicer in the prognosis of cancer patients remains controversial. This systematic review is attempted to assess the influence of Dicer as a prognostic predictor for survival in diverse types of cancers.

Methods: Studies were selected as candidates if they published an independent evaluation of Dicer expression level together with the correlation with prognosis in cancers. Random-effect model was applied in this meta-analysis. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by Q-statistic with P < 0.10 to be statistically significant. Publication bias was investigated using funnel plot and test with Begg’s and Egger’s test. P < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results: 24 of 44 articles revealed low Dicer status as a predictor of poor prognosis. The aggregate result of overall survival (OS) indicated that low Dicer expression level resulted in poor clinical outcomes, and subgroup of IHC and RT-PCR method both revealed the same result. Overall analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) showed the same result as OS, and both the two subgroups divided by laboratory method revealed positive results. Subgroup analysis by tumor types showed low dicer levels were associated with poor prognosis in ovarian cancer (HR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.19-3.15), otorhinolaryngological tumors (HR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.70-3.36), hematological malignancies (HR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.69-3.56) and neuroblastoma (HR = 4.03, 95% CI: 1.91-8.50).

Conclusion: Low Dicer status was associated with poor prognosis in ovarian cancer, otorhinolaryngological tumors and ematological malignancies. More homogeneous studies with high quality are needed to further confirm our conclusion and make Dicer a useful parameter in clinical application.

Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 12183