Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Increased expression of Ki-67 is a poor prognostic marker for colorectal cancer patients: a meta analysis

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Contributed equally
BMC Cancer201919:123

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5324-y

  • Received: 22 March 2018
  • Accepted: 28 January 2019
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

The prognostic value of Ki-67 expression in colorectal cancer patients was controversial. Therefore, this meta analysis was conducted to ascertain the prognostic value of Ki-67 expression in colorectal cancer patients.

Methods

The electronic databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge database, were searched from January 1970 to July 2017. The pooled hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate the prognostic value of Ki-67 expression for colorectal cancer patients.

Results

Totally 34 eligible studies and 6180 colorectal cancer patients were included in the present meta analysis. The pooled hazard ratios were 1.54(95% CI 1.17–2.02, P = 0.005) for overall survival and 1.43(1.12–1.83, P = 0.008) for disease free survival in univariate analysis. After adjustment of other prognostic factors, the pooled HR was 1.50(95% CI 1.02–2.22, P = 0.03) for overall survival in multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

The present meta analysis demonstrated that high Ki-67 expression is significantly correlated with poor overall survival and disease free survival, indicating that high Ki-67 expression may serve as a valuable predictive method for poor prognosis of colorectal cancer patients.

Introduction

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is the fourth most common cause of death induced by carcinoma, accounting for 600,000 deaths per year [1]. Some clinical factors, such as tumor stage, tumor necrosis, vascular invasion and differentiation, have been reported to be associated with prognosis of CRC patients [2, 3]. However, these factors were not sufficient to accurately make risk stratification for clinical prognosis. In clinical practice, identification of patients with high risk of poor prognosis would help to optimize treatment and to improve clinical prognosis. Therefore, there is an urgent need to find reliable prognostic factors for prediction of clinical prognosis in CRC patients.

Ki-67 antigen expresses throughout the cell cycle in proliferating cells, except for quiescent (G0) cells [4]. The correlation between Ki-67 expression and prognosis of CRC patients were still contradictory in various studies [538]. Several studies showed that high Ki-67 expression was related with poor overall survival (OS) [2630], whereas several studies reported that high Ki-67 expression was correlated with favorable OS [8, 15, 16]. Therefore, we performed this meta analysis to determine the prognostic value of Ki-67 expression in CRC patients.

Materials and methods

Literature search strategy

Four electronic databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Library, were searched from January 1990 to July 2017 for eligible studies. We performed literature search by combined text word and MeSH strategy for PubMed with the following search strategy: (“Ki67” or “Ki-67” or “MIB-1” or “MIB1”) and (“carcinoma” or “neoplasm” or “tumor” or “cancer” or “malignancy”) and (“colorectal” or “rectal” or “colon”) and (“prognosis” or “prognostic” or “survival” or “outcome” or “mortality”).The strategies for EMBASE and other databases were similar but were adapted according to the guideline of the database. Meanwhile, expanded search of hyponym was performed. In the retrieval process, we made a manual search using the references of the including articles to supplement eligible studies. We contacted the corresponding author to get necessary study data if necessary. The search was restricted to human studies and there was no restriction in terms of language or publication time. All information investigation and collection were conducted according to the principles of Declaration of Helsinki.

Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

The inclusion criteria were defined as follows: (1) proven pathological diagnosis of CRC in humans; (2) assessment of Ki-67 expression by using immunohistochemistry (IHC) method; (3) enough survival information such as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Studies not directly providing hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval were included if survival information were available from survival curves or tables. Articles published in Chinese were included in the present meta analysis as English literature. For multiple studies from the same study population, only the most recently published study was included in the present analysis.

The following studies were excluded: (1) non-human experiments; (2) case reports, reviews, letters and conference abstracts without survival information; (3) lack of the necessary survival information.

Quality assessment

Two reviewers (Zhi-Qiao Zhang and Zhao-Wen Luo) independently assessed the quality of the studies included in the present meta analysis using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The NOS comprises assessments of patient selection, study comparability, follow-up and outcomes of interest. The total scores were used to evaluate the quality of the study. Disagreements between two reviewers (Zhi-Qiao Zhang and Zhao-Wen Luo) were resolved by consultation with a third reviewer (Ming-Gu Zhu).

Data extraction

Two investigators (Zhi-Qiao Zhang and Zhao-Wen Luo) independently extracted the survival information of the original studies: surname of the first author, country, study sample size, publication year, disease stage, test method of Ki-67 expression, clinical parameters, and survival information (HRs and 95%CIs). All study information were extracted and recorded by using a standardized form. All included studies were coded as the surname of the first author + publish year in the standardized form. Study authors were contacted to get necessary data if necessary. Disagreements between two investigators were resolved by discussion with a third investigator (Ming-Gu Zhu).

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed according to the suggestions advised by the Meta analysis of Observational.

Studies in Epidemiology group(MOOSE) [39]. The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI were used to summary the final effects of survival outcome. We pooled HR and 95% CI if the survival data were reported in the original articles. While HR and 95% CI were not directly reported in the articles, survival data was extracted from Kaplan-Meier curve and used to estimate HR. The heterogeneity among various studies was measured by the Q and I2 tests. A probability value of I2 value≥30% and P value< 0.1 indicated the existence of significant heterogeneity. A random effect model (DerSimonian and Laird method) or fixed effect model(Mantel-Haenszel method) was used according to the results of heterogeneity analyses. Meta-regression analyses (Reml method) and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plot, Begg’s test, Egger’s test, and trim and fill method were performed to assess publication bias. The difference was considered to be statistically significant if P value < 0.05. The statistical analyses were performed by STATA version 12.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA).

Results

Search results

The initial search returned a total of 410 articles (with 204 duplicate articles). After screening the abstracts, 159 irrelevant articles were excluded according to the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Reviewers identified 47 potential studies for full-text review and 13 articles were eliminated due to inadequate data for meta analysis. Finally, a total of 34 studies were included in the present meta analysis [538]. The details of screening process were shown in Fig. 1. Quality assessment of 34 eligible studies were performed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flowchart of study selection in the present meta analysis

Study selection and characteristics

The characteristic of the 34 included studies were summarized in Table 1. The publication time ranged from 1997 to 2015.The patient number of 34 studies ranged from 30 to 867,with a mean sample size of 182. The mean length of follow-up period ranged from 23 to 130 months. The NOS scores for quality of 34 studies in this meta analysis varied from 6 to 7, with a mean value of 6.5. Ki-67 expression were measured in surgical tumor tissues.
Table 1

Characteristics of studies included in the present meta analysis

Author/Country/Year

Detection

Quantitative

Antibody

Fixed

Positivea

Median age

History

 

Cut off

Patient

method

method

type

method

Rate(%)

(Range)

Type/ Stage

Therapy

Value

Number

Meyer [5]

Germany 2009

microscope

semi-quantitative

mouse monoclonal

formalin

88.8%

64(28–91)

CC

II-IV

S + C

NR

392

Garrity [6]

Canada 2004

NR

quantitative

NR

formalin

62.4%

NR

CRC

II-III

S + C

27.0%

366

Fodor [7]

America 2012

Tissue microarrays

quantitative

NR

formalin

52.0%

71.5(18–97)

CRC

I-IV

S + C

60.0%

867

Salminen [8]

Finland 2005

microscope

quantitative

mouse monoclonal

formalin

45.2%

66(36–86)

RC

I-IV

S + R

40.0%

146

Zhang [9]

China 2015

Tissue microarrays

quantitative

NR

formalin

47.9%

72(37–93)

CRC

I-IV

S + R

40.0%

73

Yoshimura [10]

Japan 2003

microscope

quantitative

monoclonal

NR

NR

65

CRC

III

S

62.0%

56

Li [11]

China 2010

Tissue microarrays

semi-quantitative

monoclonal

formalin

78.8%

65(22–95)

CC

I-IV

S

10.0%

203

Li [12]

China 2011

Tissue microarrays

semi-quantitative

monoclonal

formalin

78.8%

65(22–95)

CC

I-IV

S

10.0%

203

Dawson [13]

Switzerland 2014

Tissue microarrays

quantitative

monoclonal

formalin

NR

71(35–93)

CRC

I-IV

S + C

30.0%

188

Weber 2001 [14]

France 2001

microscope

quantitative

mouse monoclonal

formalin

50.2%

61(29–80)

CRCLM

I-IV

S + C

50.0%

221

Xi [15]

China 2011

microscope

semi-quantitative

mouse monoclonal

formalin

59.7%

62(20–81)

CRC

I-IV

S

score > 5

201

Ivanecz [16]

Slovenia 2014

microscope

semi-quantitative

mouse monoclonal

formalin

28.0%

62(27–78)

CRCLM

I-IV

S + C

50.0%

98

Rosati [17]

Italy 2004

microscope

semi-quantitative

monoclonal

formalin

55.3%

66(29–79)

CRC

II-III

S + C

10.0%

103

Nishihara [18]

Japan 2009

microscope

quantitative

mouse monoclonal

formalin

51.2%

68(33–94)

CRC

I-IV

S

40.0%

201

Scopa [19]

Greece 2003

microscope

semi-quantitative

mouse monoclonal

NR

64.0%

66(25–82)

CRC

I-IV

S + C

5.0%

117

Visca [20]

Italy 1999

microscope

semi-quantitative

mouse monoclonal

formalin

90%

64

CRC

I-IV

S

20.0%

100

Handa [21]

Japan 1999

microscope

quantitative

monoclonal

formalin

65.8%

66(39–90)

CRC

I-IV

S

19.5%

73

Bahnassy [22]

Egypt 2004

microscope

quantitative

NR

NR

NR

NR

CRC

I-IV

S

11.5%

60

Buglioni 1999 [23]

microscope

quantitative

NR

NR

50.3%

64(56–70)

CRC

I-IV

S

25.0%

171

Bertolini [24]

Italy 2007

microscope

quantitative

NR

formalin

90.0%

64(26–78)

RC

I-III

S + C + R

20.0%

91

Kimura [25]

Japan 2000

microscope

quantitative

monoclonal

formalin

31.0%

63.1 ± 10.7

CRC

II-IV

S

50.6%

71

Fernandez-Cebrian [26]

Spain 2007

microscope

semi-quantitative

mouse monoclonal

NR

69.1%

63.9(45–96)

CC

II

S

25.0%

162

Wu 2012 [27]

China 2012

microscope

semi-quantitative

mouse monoclonal

formalin

78.7%

62(22–83)

CRC

I-IV

S

score > 5

192

Furudoi 2001 [28]

Japan 2001

microscope

quantitative

monoclonal

formalin

45.0%

63.2 ± 13.9

CRC

II-IV

S + C

47.9%

111

Lin [29]

China 2008

microscope

semi-quantitative

mouse monoclonal

NR

18.3%

64

CRC

I-IV

S

50.0%

60

Hayashi 2015 [30]

Japan 2015

microscope

quantitative

mouse monoclonal

formalin

63.5%

65(35–83)

CRCLM

I-IV

S + C

30.0%

54

Ajani [31]

America 2010

microscope

quantitative

monoclonal

formalin

50.0%

NR

RC

I-IV

C + R

median

30

Li [32]

China 2009

microscope

quantitative

monoclonal

formalin

78.8%

65(22–95)

CC

I-IV

S

10.0%

203

Hu 2009 [33]

China 2009

microscope

quantitative

NR

formalin

30.7%

56.6(34–75)

CRC

NR

S

10.0%

52

Roxburgh [34]

Scotland 2013

Tissue microarrays

quantitative

mouse monoclonal

NR

61%

NR

CRC

I-III

S + C

15%

230

Shin 2014 [35]

Korea 2014

microscope

quantitative

NR

NR

74.4%

63(30–87)

CRC

I-IV

S + C

50.0%

266

Nash [36]

America 2010

microscope

quantitative

NR

formalin

66.0%

63(19–84)

CRCLM

I-IV

S + C

50.0%

188

Prall [37]

Germany 2004

Tissue microarrays

quantitative

mouse monoclonal

NR

50.0%

64.8(29–90)

CRC

I-IV

S + C + R

median

149

Zlobec [38]

Switzerland 2008

Tissue microarrays

quantitative

NR

NR

42.5%

68.7(36–96)

RC

I-IV

S + C + R

15.0%

482

NR not reported, OS overall survival, DFS disease free survival, S surgery, C chemotherapy, R radiotherapy, CRC colorectal cancer, CRCLM colorectal liver metastases, CC colon cancer, RC rectal cancer, NOS Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, IHC immunohistochemistry

apositive status was defined according to cut off value

Prognostic value of high Ki-67 expression

Finally 34 studies and 6180 CRC patients were collected and analyzed for prognostic value of Ki-67 expression. The pooled HR was 1.54(95% CI 1.17–2.02, P = 0.005) for overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis (Fig. 2). After adjustment of other prognostic factors, the pooled HR was 1.50(95% CI 1.02–2.22, P = 0.03) for OS in multivariate analysis (Fig. 3). The pooled HR was 1.43(95% CI 1.12–1.83, P = 0.008) for disease survival (DFS) in univariate analysis (Fig. 4).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Forest plot diagrams of Ki-67 expression for overall survival in univariate analysis

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Forest plot diagrams of Ki-67 expression for overall survival in multivariate analysis

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Forest plot diagrams of Ki-67 expression for disease free survival in univariate analysis

Publication bias

For OS in univariate analysis, the funnel plot of Ki-67 expression showed obvious asymmetry (Fig. 5a), indicating that the pooled results might be influenced by the publication bias. The Begg’s test and Egger’s test were further performed to explore publication bias in the present meta analysis. There was significant publication bias according to Egger’s test (P = 0.008) whereas Begg’s test did not show significant publication bias (P = 0.629).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Funnel plot of high Ki-67 expression. a Overall survival in univariate analysis; b Overall survival in multivariate analysis; c Disease free survival in univariate analysis

For OS in multivariate analysis, the funnel plot of Ki-67 expression did not show obvious asymmetry (Fig. 5b). There was no significant publication bias according to Egger’s test (P = 0.378) and Begg’s test (P = 1.0).

For DFS in univariate analysis, the funnel plot of Ki-67 expression showed obvious asymmetry (Fig. 5c). There was significant publication bias according to Egger’s test (P = 0.032) whereas Begg’s test did not show significant publication bias in the present study (P = 0.246).

Contour-enhanced funnel plot

The contour-enhanced funnel plot can help to ascertain whether funnel plot asymmetry due to publication bias [40]. Contour lines which indicated conventional milestones in levels of statistical significance (0.05, and 0.1) are added to funnel plots. If the dummy studies lie in areas of statistical nonsignificance, then this provides evidence of the possibility that the funnel plot asymmetry is due to publication bias. Conversely, if the dummy studies are in areas of high statistical significance(P > 0.05), this will support that the cause of the funnel plot asymmetry may be caused by factors other than publication bias, such as poor methodological quality or true heterogeneity.

To explore the potential causes of funnel plot asymmetry for OS in univariate analysis, a contour-enhanced funnel plot by using the trim-and-fill method was performed. The dummy studies were indicated by red triangles and the genuine studies were indicated by green dots (Fig. 6). This trim-and-fill method added 9 dummy studies to balance the funnel plot and all 9 dummy studies were in areas of high statistical significance, suggesting that the publication bias might not the major cause of funnel plot asymmetry in the present meta analysis.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Contour-enhanced funnel plot for overall survival in univariate analysis

Meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis

Subgroup analysis (Table 2) suggested that cut off value, treatment and pathologic type might contribute to the clinical heterogeneity. The pooled HRs were 0.743 (95% CI 0.332–1.662, I2 = 20.7%, P = 0.261) for rectal cancer (RC) patients and 1.902(0.695–5.198, I2 = 92%, P = 0.001) for colorectal liver metastases (CRCLM) patients. Further meta- regression analysis did not find any significant source of heterogeneity (all P > 0.05).
Table 2

Subgroup analysis for association between Ki-67 expression and overall survival

Term

Subgroup

Number

Pooled

95%CI

P

Heterogeneity

P

 

of study

HR

  

I 2

 

Location

Asian

10

1.89

1.23–2.90

0.003

70.9

0.001

Non- Asian

11

1.282

0.936–1.758

0.122

77.4

0.001

Cut off value

≥40%

9

1.5

1.01–2.24

0.044

84.9

0.001

<40%

10

1.71

1.33–2.21

0.001

0

0.529

Patient number

≥100

13

1.381

0.994–1.918

0.054

75.7

0.001

<100

8

2.008

1.131–3.564

0.017

79.4

0.001

Positive ratea

≥50%

14

1.513

1.119–2.046

0.007

64.2

0.001

<50%

6

1.589

0.911–2.773

0.103

86.5

0.001

Pathologic type

CRC

14

1.526

1.135–2.05

0.005

62.8

0.001

CC

2

2.257

1.418–3.594

0.001

77.7

0.001

RC

2

0.743

0.332–1.662

0.469

20.7

0.261

CRCLM

3

1.902

0.696–5.198

0.21

92.6

0.001

Treatment

S

12

1.518

1.038–2.221

0.031

74.6

0.001

S + C

7

1.477

0.933–2.338

0.096

82.3

0.001

S + C + R

2

2.216

1.227–4.002

0.008

0

0.945

Extraction method

Curve

7

1.261

0.915–1.736

0.001

57.3

0.029

Reported

14

2.095

1.491–2.02

0.156

72.5

0.001

HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, CRC colorectal cancer, CRCLM colorectal liver metastases, CC colon cancer, RC rectal cancer, S surgery, C chemotherapy, R radiotherapy

apositive status was defined according to cut off value

According to the results of subgroup analysis, we further explored the association between Ki-67 expression and overall survival with different cut off values (Fig. 7). The pooled HR (1.97, 95% CI 1.37–2.83) in group with cut off value (20–30%) was significantly higher than that in other groups, indicating that cut off value (20–30%) might be more suitable for clinical practice than other cut off values.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Forest plot diagrams of Ki-67 expression for overall survival according different cut off values. a Cut off value (5–19%); b Cut off value (20–30%); c Cut off value (40–49%); d Cut off value (50–60%)

Sensitivity analyses

All studies were sequentially removed to explore that whether any individual study had a significant influence to the pooled HRs. The pooled HRs of sensitivity meta analysis ranged from 1.49(95%CI: 1.13–1.96) to 1.65 (95%CI: 1.26–2.15) for OS in univariate analysis, demonstrating that the pooled HRs were not significantly affected by any individual study (Table 3).
Table 3

Effect of individual studies on the pooled hazard ratios of Ki-67 expression for overall survival

Study omitted

HR

Lower value of 95% CI

Upper value of 95% CI

1

1.6470636

1.2618686

2.1498425

2

1.6286341

1.2338984

2.1496494

3

1.6086709

1.2262427

2.110367

4

1.5804045

1.1893544

2.1000286

5

1.5853532

1.1829669

2.1246113

6

1.5744233

1.1822454

2.0966956

7

1.5586835

1.1753646

2.0670133

8

1.5452128

1.1628222

2.0533514

9

1.5309644

1.158212

2.0236814

10

1.5309644

1.158212

2.0236814

11

1.5234994

1.150002

2.0183012

12

1.5333095

1.1640916

2.0196332

13

1.5163125

1.145869

2.0065153

14

1.5121837

1.1424872

2.00151

15

1.5081896

1.1403373

1.9947045

16

1.5015592

1.136433

1.9839972

17

1.5038622

1.1387317

1.9860705

18

1.4894764

1.1326977

1.9586338

19

1.4916791

1.1332084

1.9635456

20

1.4770394

1.1257362

1.9379722

21

1.4908768

1.1371239

1.9546804

Combined

1.5392004

1.1725948

2.0204233

HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

Cumulative meta analysis of Ki-67 expression

We further performed cumulative meta analysis to assess the stability of Ki-67 expression for OS in univariate analysis (Fig. 8a), OS in multivariate analysis (Fig. 8b) and DFS in univariate analysis (Fig. 8c). The pooled HRs of cumulative meta analysis ranged from 1.48(95%CI 1.1–2.0) to 2.14 (95%CI 1.64–2.79) for OS in univariate analysis since 1999, demonstrating that performance of Ki-67 expression for OS in CRC patients was stable and reliable.
Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Cumulative meta analysis of Ki-67 expression. a Overall survival in univariate analysis; b Overall survival in multivariate analysis; c Disease free survival in univariate analysis

Discussion

The present meta analysis showed that high Ki-67 expression is significantly correlated with poor prognosis in CRC patients. The pooled hazard ratios were 1.54(95% CI 1.17–2.02, P = 0.005) for overall survival and 1.43(1.12–1.83, P = 0.008) for disease free survival in univariate analysis. After adjustment of other prognostic factors, the pooled HR was 1.50(95% CI 1.02–2.22, P = 0.03) for overall survival in multivariate analysis.

Some previous studies have reported that high Ki-67 expression significantly predicted poor OS in CRC patients [2630]. The conclusion of the present meta analysis was consistent with that of these previous studies. Although the mechanism of Ki-67 expression on tumor prognosis was still uncertain, some clinical studies have provided interesting evidences for utility of Ki-67 expression as a predictive tool for clinical prognosis in patients with different tumors, for example prostate cancer, thyroid carcinoma and renal clear cell [4143]. Interestingly, there were three studies indicated that there was a negative association between the high Ki-67 expression and the overall survival of CRC patients. Salminen et al. [8] reported that HR of high Ki-67 expression was 0.63 (95% CI 0.41–0.98) for overall survival in univariate analysis, whereas it was 1.26 (95% CI 0.67–2.39) for overall survival in multivariate analysis. Xi et al. [15] reported that HR of high Ki-67 expression was 0.34 (95% CI 0.16–0.73) for overall survival by using a special scoring system of Ki-67 expression: The intensity of positivity was scored as follows: 0, negative; 1, weak; 2, moderate; 3, strong. The extent of positivity was scored according to the percentage of cells showing positive staining: 0, < 5%; 1, 5–25%; 2, 25–50%; 3, 50–75%; 4, > 75%. The final score was determined by multiplying the intensity of positivity and the extent of positivity scores and final score > 5 was defined as positive. Ivanecz et al. [16] selected 98 patients for prognostic study from 406 patients by using the following criteria: first liver resection for CLM; potentially curative R0 resection; follow-up period of surviving patients > 5 years. The special inclusion criteria might influence the baseline characteristics and weaken the credibility of study conclusion.

There was significant heterogeneity in the present meta analysis. The current meta analysis might exist several potential sources of heterogeneity as follows: First, the heterogeneity caused by different cut off values of Ki-67 expression was inevitable. The subgroup analysis have revealed the influence of different cut off values on heterogeneity. Second, the subgroup analysis suggested that different treatment has a significant effect on heterogeneity and might be a potential source of heterogeneity. Third, obvious difference of the pooled HRs between rectal cancer subgroup and colorectal liver metastases subgroup suggested that further study is need to clarify the exact influence of different pathologic type on clinical prognosis.

Publication bias is an important influence factor for interpreting the conclusion. The funnel plot for OS in univariate analysis was obviously asymmetrical and Egger’s test also demonstrated significant publication bias (P = 0.008). The funnel plot asymmetry might be caused by different reasons as follows: Firstly, publication bias was one important source of funnel plot asymmetry, for example location bias, citation bias, language bias, time lag bias, multiple publication bias and outcome reporting bias. Secondly, the true heterogeneity in intervention effects might be one resource of funnel plot asymmetry. The true heterogeneity might be caused by differences in the intensity of interventions or differences in underlying risk between studies with different sizes. Thirdly, poor methodological quality was another source of funnel plot asymmetry. Smaller studies were often performed with poorer methodological quality than larger studies. Therefore, smaller studies with poorer methodological quality also tended to display larger influences than larger studies. Finally, funnel plot asymmetrical might be caused by chance. We conducted a contour-enhanced funnel plot using the trim-and-fill method to explore the potential cause of funnel plot asymmetry. Given that all 9 dummy studies were in areas of high statistical significance, the publication bias might not the major cause of funnel plot asymmetry in the present meta analysis.

Although significant heterogeneity existed in the present meta analysis, sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the relation between high Ki-67 expression and poor prognosis of CRC patients did not changed after removing any individual study. Meanwhile, cumulative meta analysis also showed that performance of high Ki-67 expression for poor prognosis in CRC patients was stable and reliable.

The present meta analysis had several strengths: Firstly, there were 34 eligible studies and 6180 CRC patients in the present study, which could significantly increase persuasiveness of the conclusion. Secondly, Ki-67 expression in 34 eligible studies was all measured with IHC method, leading to less clinical heterogeneity. Thirdly, studies published in Chinese were also included in this meta analysis as English literature, increasing the representation of the study population.

The conclusion of the present meta analysis should be interpreted cautiously for reasons as follows: Firstly, most studies defined positive status of Ki-67 expression according to different cut off values, which might result in clinical heterogeneity. Hence, it is necessary to determine an universal cut off value for future studies. Secondly, heterogeneity was inevitable due to different baseline characteristics, such as tumor stage and treatment, which might increase clinical heterogeneity and reduce the persuasiveness of the conclusion. Thirdly, some survival data were extracted from survival curves indirectly. Although the method for extracting HR and 95% CI from survival curves is widely accepted, we could not completely eliminate the sources of information inaccuracy in the process of information extraction. Fourthly, Ki-67 expression in the selected studies was measured by IHC method. This method might suffer from important variation among different studies and was not enough precise for a rigorous and precise conclusion. Fifthly, several genes have been reported to be related with the prognosis of CRC patients including KRAS, Cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (cdc2), and Cathepsin D [5, 35, 36]. Interestingly enough, Nash reported that patients with KRAS mutant tumors that expressed high levels of Ki-67 had significantly worse DFS than patients with KRAS wild-type tumors that expressed low level of Ki-67, indicating that combined application of these predictive genes might provide more valuable prognostic information and further improve the clinical prediction of prognosis for CRC patients.

In conclusion, the present meta analysis demonstrated that high Ki-67 expression significantly predicts poor overall survival and disease free survival. High Ki-67 expression may serve as a valuable predictive biomarker for poor prognosis in CRC patients.

Notes

Abbreviations

C: 

Chemotherapy

CC: 

Colon cancer

CI: 

Confidence interval

CRC: 

Colorectal cancer

CRCLM: 

Colorectal liver metastases

DFS: 

Disease free survival

HR: 

Hazard ratio

IHC: 

Immunohistochemistry

NOS: 

Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale

NR: 

Not reported

OR: 

Odds ratio

OS: 

Overall survival

R: 

Radiotherapy

RC: 

Rectal cancer

S: 

Surgery

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Guangdong Provincial Health Department (No: A2016450). The following URL is the web link of Guangdong Provincial Health Department (http://www.gdwst.gov.cn/).

Funding

This study was funded by Health Department and Finance Department of Guangdong Province. The Grant Number was No: A2016450.The funding account was RMB 5000. The funder had no role in design, data collection, data analysis and publish of the present manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of the present study were included in the article.

Authors’ contributions

ZZ, ZM and LZ designed the study. ZZ, YF, HW, LX, and LZ performed the research; ZZ and ZM collected and analyzed the data; ZZ and ZM wrote the paper; LZ amended the article. ZZ act as the submission’s guarantor and takes responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article. All authors reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All the authors have agreed to publish article in the current magazine.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Internal Medicine, The Affiliated Chencun Hospital of Shunde Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shunde, 528313, Guangdong, China

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:359–86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Huh JW, Lee JH, Kim HR. Expression of p16, p53, and Ki-67 in colorectal adenocarcinoma: a study of 356 surgically resected cases. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2010;57:734–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Sheehan KM, Sheahan K, O'Donoghue DP, MacSweeney F, Conroy RM, Fitzgerald DJ, Murray FE. The relationship between cyclooxygenase-2 expression and colorectal cancer. JAMA. 1999;282:1254–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Schluter C, Duchrow M, Wohlenberg C, Becker MH, Key G, Flad HD, Gerdes J. The cell proliferation-associated antigen of antibody Ki-67: a very large, ubiquitous nuclear protein with numerous repeated elements, representing a new kind of cell cycle-maintaining proteins. J Cell Biol. 1993;123(3):513–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Meyer A, Merkel S, Bruckl W, Schellerer V, Schildberg C, Campean V, Hohenberger W, Croner RS. Cdc2 as prognostic marker in stage UICC II colon carcinomas. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(8):1466–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Garrity MM, Burgart LJ, Mahoney MR, Windschitl HE, Salim M, Wiesenfeld M, Krook JE, Michalak JC, Goldberg RM, O'Connell MJ, et al. Prognostic value of proliferation, apoptosis, defective DNA mismatch repair, and p53 overexpression in patients with resected Dukes' B2 or C colon cancer: a north central Cancer treatment group study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(9):1572–82.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Fodor IK, Hutchins GG, Espiritu C, Quirke P, Jubb AM. Prognostic and predictive significance of proliferation in 867 colorectal cancers. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(11):989–95.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Salminen E, Palmu S, Vahlberg T, Roberts PJ, Soderstrom KO. Increased proliferation activity measured by immunoreactive Ki67 is associated with survival improvement in rectal/recto sigmoid cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11(21):3245–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Zhang Z, Wang M, Zhou L, Feng X, Cheng J, Yu Y, Gong Y, Zhu Y, Li C, Tian L, et al. Increased HMGB1 and cleaved caspase-3 stimulate the proliferation of tumor cells and are correlated with the poor prognosis in colorectal cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2015;34:51.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Yoshimura H, Dhar DK, Nakamoto T, Kotoh T, Takano M, Soma G, Nagasue N. Prognostic significance of tumor necrosis factor receptor in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2003;23(1A):85–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Li DW, Tang HM, Fan JW, Yan DW, Zhou CZ, Li SX, Wang XL, Peng ZH. Expression level of Bmi-1 oncoprotein is associated with progression and prognosis in colon cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136(7):997–1006.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Li D, Peng X, Yan D, Tang H, Huang F, Yang Y, Peng Z. Msi-1 is a predictor of survival and a novel therapeutic target in colon cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(7):2074–83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson H, Koelzer VH, Karamitopoulou E, Economou M, Hammer C, Muller DE, Lugli A, Zlobec I. The apoptotic and proliferation rate of tumour budding cells in colorectal cancer outlines a heterogeneous population of cells with various impacts on clinical outcome. Histopathology. 2014;64(4):577–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Weber JC, Nakano H, Bachellier P, Oussoultzoglou E, Inoue K, Shimura H, Wolf P, Chenard-Neu MP, Jaeck D. Is a proliferation index of cancer cells a reliable prognostic factor after hepatectomy in patients with colorectal liver metastases? Am J Surg. 2001;182(1):81–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Xi HQ, Zhao P. Clinicopathological significance and prognostic value of EphA3 and CD133 expression in colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 2011;64(6):498–503.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Ivanecz A, Kavalar R, Palfy M, Pivec V, Sremec M, Horvat M, Potrc S. Can we improve the clinical risk score? The prognostic value of p53, Ki-67 and thymidylate synthase in patients undergoing radical resection of colorectal liver metastases. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16(3):235–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosati G, Chiacchio R, Reggiardo G, De Sanctis D, Manzione L. Thymidylate synthase expression, p53, bcl-2, Ki-67 and p27 in colorectal cancer: relationships with tumor recurrence and survival. Tumour Biol. 2004;25(5–6):258–63.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Nishihara K, Shomori K, Tamura T, Fujioka S, Ogawa T, Ito H. Immunohistochemical expression of geminin in colorectal cancer: implication of prognostic significance. Oncol Rep. 2009;21(5):1189–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Scopa CD, Tsamandas AC, Zolota V, Kalofonos HP, Batistatou A, Vagianos C. Potential role of bcl-2 and ki-67 expression and apoptosis in colorectal carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study. Dig Dis Sci. 2003;48(10):1990–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Visca P, Alo PL, Del NF, Botti C, Trombetta G, Marandino F, Filippi S, Di Tondo U, Donnorso RP. Immunohistochemical expression of fatty acid synthase, apoptotic-regulating genes, proliferating factors, and ras protein product in colorectal adenomas, carcinomas, and adjacent nonneoplastic mucosa. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;5(12):4111–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Handa K, Yamakawa M, Takeda H, Kimura S, Takahashi T. Expression of cell cycle markers in colorectal carcinoma: superiority of cyclin a as an indicator of poor prognosis. Int J Cancer. 1999;84(3):225–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Bahnassy AA, Zekri AR, El-Houssini S, El-Shehaby AM, Mahmoud MR, Abdallah S, El-Serafi M. Cyclin A and cyclin D1 as significant prognostic markers in colorectal cancer patients. BMC Gastroenterol. 2004;4:22.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Buglioni S, D'Agnano I, Cosimelli M, Vasselli S, D'Angelo C, Tedesco M, Zupi G, Mottolese M. Evaluation of multiple bio-pathological factors in colorectal adenocarcinomas: independent prognostic role of p53 and bcl-2. Int J Cancer. 1999;84(6):545–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Bertolini F, Bengala C, Losi L, Pagano M, Iachetta F, Dealis C, Jovic G, Depenni R, Zironi S, Falchi AM, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of baseline and posttreatment molecular marker expression in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(5):1455–61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimura T, Tanaka S, Haruma K, Sumii K, Kajiyama G, Shimamoto F, Kohon N. Clinical significance of MUC1 and E-cadherin expression, cellular proliferation, and angiogenesis at the deepest invasive portion of colorectal cancer. Int J Oncol. 2000;16(1):55–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Fernandez-Cebrian JM, Nevado SM, Vorwald KP, Pardo DLM, Martin-Cavanna J, Pacheco MP, Fernández Escudero B, Ramos FM. Can the clinical outcome in stage II colon carcinomas be predicted by determination of molecular marker expression? Clin Transl Oncol. 2007;9(10):663–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Wu XS, Xi HQ, Chen L. Lgr5 is a potential marker of colorectal carcinoma stem cells that correlates with patient survival. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:244.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Furudoi A, Tanaka S, Haruma K, Yoshihara M, Sumii K, Kajiyama G, Shimamoto F. Clinical significance of human erythrocyte glucose transporter 1 expression at the deepest invasive site of advanced colorectal carcinoma. Oncology. 2001;60(2):162–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin MX, Wen ZF, Feng ZY, He D. Expression and significance of Bmi-1 and Ki67 in colorectal carcinoma tissues. Ai Zheng. 2008;27(12):1321–6 [Article in Chinese].PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayashi H, Beppu T, Sakamoto Y, Miyamoto Y, Yokoyama N, Higashi T, Nitta H, Hashimoto D, Chikamoto A, Baba H. Prognostic value of Ki-67 expression in conversion therapy for colorectal liver-limited metastases. Am J Cancer Res. 2015;5(3):1225–33.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Ajani JA, Wang X, Izzo JG, Crane CH, Eng C, Skibber JM, Das P, Rashid A. Molecular biomarkers correlate with disease-free survival in patients with anal canal carcinoma treated with chemoradiation. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55(4):98–105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Li D, Yan D, Tang H, Zhou C, Fan J, Li S, Wang X, Xia J, Huang F, Qiu G, et al. IMP3 is a novel prognostic marker that correlates with colon cancer progression and pathogenesis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(12):3499–506.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Hu TH, Lin JW, Chen HH, Liu LF, Chuah SK, Tai MH. The expression and prognostic role of hepatoma-derived growth factor in colorectal stromal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(2):319–26.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Roxburgh CS, Richards CH, Macdonald AI, Powell AG, McGlynn LM, McMillan DC, Horgan PG, Edwards J, Shiels PG. The in situ local immune response, tumour senescence and proliferation in colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(8):2207–16.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Shin IY, Sung NY, Lee YS, Kwon TS, Si Y, Lee YS, Oh ST, Lee IK. The expression of multiple proteins as prognostic factors in colorectal cancer: cathepsin D, p53, COX-2, epidermal growth factor receptor, C-erbB-2, and Ki-67. Gut Liver. 2014;8(1):13–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Nash GM, Gimbel M, Shia J, Nathanson DR, Ndubuisi MI, Zeng ZS, Kemeny N, Paty PB. KRAS mutation correlates with accelerated metastatic progression in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(2):572–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Prall F, Ostwald C, Nizze H, Barten M. Expression profiling of colorectal carcinomas using tissue microarrays: cell cycle regulatory proteins p21, p27, and p53 as immunohistochemical prognostic markers in univariate and multivariate analysis. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2004;12(2):111–21.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Zlobec I, Baker K, Terracciano L, Peter S, Degen L, Beglinger C, Lugli A. Two-marker protein profile predicts poor prognosis in patients with early rectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(10):1712–7.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Metaanalysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contour-enhanced meta analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:991–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Pollack A, DeSilvio M, Khor LY, Li R, Al-Saleem TI, Hammond ME, Venkatesan V, Lawton CA, Roach M 3rd, Shipley WU, et al. Ki-67 staining is a strong predictor of distant metastasis and mortality for men with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial 92–02. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2133–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Bui MH, Visapaa H, Seligson D, Kim H, Han KR, Huang Y, Horvath S, Stanbridge EJ, Palotie A, Figlin RA, et al. Prognostic value of kroniek anhydrase IX and Ki67 as predictor of survival for renal clear cell cancer. J Urol. 2004;171:2461–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Tisell LE, Oden A, Muth A, Altiparmak G, Molne J, Ahlman H, Nilsson O. The Ki67 index a prognostic marker in medullary thyroid carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:2093–7.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement