Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Prognostic markers involved in suppressing growth of ESCC as reported in original studies

From: Immunohistochemical prognostic markers of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review

Marker References Sample size Clinical stage OS DFS Analytic methods
HR 95% CI P value HR 95% CI P value
Rb Mathew et al. [11] 50 I–IV >0.05 Log-rank test
Takeuchi et al. [44] 90 I–III 0.218 0.11 Log-rank test
Guner et al. [45] 53 I–IV 0.588 0.255–1.344 0.207 Cox proportional hazards model (univariate)
Ikeguchi et al. [47] 191 I–IV 0.730 0.472–1.126 0.155 Cox proportional hazards model
Ikeguchi et al. [48] 107 I–IV 0.769 0.471–1.222 0.257 Cox proportional hazards model
Nam et al. [49] 51 I–IV >0.05 Log-rank test
Nita et al. [50] 62 I–III 0.6811 Log-rank test
Wang et al. [51] 100 I–IV >0.05 Log-rank test
P53 Okamoto et al. [20] 86 I–IV 0.30 0.55 Log-rank test
Shang et al. [30] 590 I–III 1.556 1.063–2.277 0.0229 Cox proportional hazards model
Huang et al. [52] 106 I–IV 0.732 0.531–1.010 0.060 Cox proportional hazards model
Murata et al. [53] 266 I–IV 0.62 0.73 Log-rank test
Wang et al. [54] 114 II–III 0.800 0.254–3.182 0.597 Cox proportional hazards model
  1. ESCC esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, Rb retinoblastoma-associated protein, OS overall survival, DFS disease-free survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, – no data