Sir,
The current letter refers to the meta-analysis by Samarendra et al (2017) on the prognostic relevance of CXCL12 (SDF1) expression for cancer progression, as was recently published in the British Journal of Cancer. The authors summarised a total of 38 cohorts and observed that cancer patients with high expression of CXCL12 conferred a reduced overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.17–1.65), but not recurrence-free survival (RFS) (hazard ratio 1.12, 95% CI 0.82–1.53). They claimed that determination of CXCL12 expression could potentially serve as a prognostic cancer biomarker in various human cancers. This is an interesting and clinically valuable study, however, we would like to address a few concerns on the methodology and the interpretation of the findings of this study.
Literature searching concerns. By replicating the literature search and tracking the contents of the eligible studies, we noticed that they seem to have missed some potentially important articles satisfying the inclusion criteria (Saigusa et al, 2010; Yu et al, 2016). We would like to cautiously clarify that those missing articles from the relevant literature contained survival data indispensable for considering the issue on the prognostic value of CXCL12 expression.
Methodological concerns. Significant heterogeneity among the studies cannot draw firm inferences, which originates from a statistical or clinical aspect. Though the authors tried to diminish the statistical heterogeneity through a random effects model, between-study heterogeneity was still prominent for both OS (I2=86%) and RFS (I2=85%) subsets. Meta-regression could have been performed to better clarify the exposure interactions with study-level factors for meta-analyses with a larger number of studies (generally >10) (Schmid et al, 2004). In this meta-analysis, there was a sufficient number of studies for both OS and RFS subsets. We thus consider it might be more appropriate to perform meta-regression instead of subgroup analysis.
On account of the clinical inter-study heterogeneity, besides the mentioned attributing factors such as cancer type, study design, sample size and method for defining CXCL12 expression cutoff, we believe that more study-level factors should be investigated including patient baseline characteristics (age, body mass index, disease stage, and so on), molecular profiles (tumour-infiltrating inflammation, KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutation status) (Mei et al, 2014, 2016), study quality, patient follow-up duration and statistical method (adjusted variables for survival analysis).
Concerns about specific points. We consider the selection of the main study end points improper. As RFS or cancer-specific survival is defined as the time from patient enrolment to disease recurrence or death from specific cancer, RFS could have been chosen as the main outcome with a relatively good number of studies. OS, however, though commonly used, is defined as the time from patient enrolment to death from any cause, and did not distinguish cancer-related death or other causes. Since patients in different studies varied in ages, the reported effect of CXCL12 expression could not reflect its true survival effect well, and could not potentially serve as a good prognostic biomarker based on current evidence.
Change history
06 February 2018
This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication
References
Mei ZB, Duan CY, Li CB, Cui L, Ogino S (2016) Prognostic role of tumor PIK3CA mutation in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Ann Oncol 27 (10): 1836–1848.
Mei Z, Liu Y, Liu C, Cui A, Liang Z, Wang G, Peng H, Cui L, Li C (2014) Tumour-infiltrating inflammation and prognosis in colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 110 (6): 1595–1605.
Saigusa S, Toiyama Y, Tanaka K, Yokoe T, Okugawa Y, Kawamoto A, Yasuda H, Inoue Y, Miki C, Kusunoki M (2010) Stromal CXCR4 and CXCL12 expression is associated with distant recurrence and poor prognosis in rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 17 (8): 2051–2058.
Samarendra H, Jones K, Petrinic T, Silva MA, Reddy S, Soonawalla Z, Gordon-Weeks A (2017) A meta-analysis of CXCL12 expression for cancer prognosis. Br J Cancer 117 (1): 124–135.
Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J (2004) Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (7): 683–697.
Yu D, Lv F, Zhang J, Li H (2016) SDF-1 expression is associated with poor prognosis in osteosarcoma. Ann Clin Lab Sci 46 (5): 508–514.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Shanghai TCM promotion ‘3-year action plan’ (grant nos. ZY3-CCCX-3-3034 and ZY3-CCCX-2-1003), Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (grant nos. 14401931000 and 13401903006), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 81774112 and 81673768), Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Project within the Budget (grant no. 2016YSN44).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
This work is published under the BJC's standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the license terms will change to a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License.
Rights and permissions
From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Mei, ZB., Luo, CS., Wang, QM. et al. Comment on ‘A meta-analysis of CXCL12 expression for cancer prognosis’. Br J Cancer 118, e7 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.444
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.444
This article is cited by
-
Reply to ‘Comment on ‘A meta-analysis of CXCL12 expression for cancer prognosis”
British Journal of Cancer (2018)