Disease Markers

Disease Markers / 2020 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 6520259 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6520259

Junbo Wu, Liang Liu, Feng Wu, Li Qiu, Ming Luo, Qing Ke, Xinzhou Deng, Zhiguo Luo, "Clinical and Prognostic Implications of P21 (WAF1/CIP1) Expression in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis", Disease Markers, vol. 2020, Article ID 6520259, 12 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6520259

Clinical and Prognostic Implications of P21 (WAF1/CIP1) Expression in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Academic Editor: Shih-Ping Hsu
Received03 Aug 2019
Revised22 Oct 2019
Accepted15 Nov 2019
Published07 Jan 2020

Abstract

Background. Previous studies have demonstrated that P21 (WAF1/CIP1) is a valuable prognostic factor in several malignant tumors. However, it is not known whether P21 can predict the prognosis in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). The aim of this research was to investigate the contribution of P21 expression to the clinicopathological characteristics and of EC. Methods. A systematic review and meta-analysis of study focusing on P21 expression, clinicopathological characteristics, and clinical outcomes in patients with EC was performed using seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and four Chinese databases). Pooled hazard ratios and odds ratios were used to explore the association between P21 expression, clinicopathological characteristics, and outcomes in patients with EC. The heterogeneity of the studies was classified by the statistic. The sensitivity analysis was then utilized to assess the robustness of the results. Finally, the funnel plot and Begg’s test were used to evaluate the publication bias. Results. Forty-five studies with 3098 patients were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Thirty of these studies reported on clinicopathological characteristics and 15 on clinical outcomes. The pooled hazard ratio of 1.456 (95% confidence intervals 1.033–2.053, ) for overall survival indicated that a low P21 expression level was an unfavorable prognostic factor for a clinical outcome in patients with EC. Furthermore, the pooled odds ratio confirmed an association between decreased P21 expression and poor clinicopathological characteristics, including differentiation, lymph node metastasis, invasion, and higher grade and clinical stage. Notably, high P21 expression was a significant predictor of a favorable response to chemotherapy. There was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion. Reduced P21 expression is associated with a poor outcome in patients with EC.

1. Introduction

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the seventh leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and in 2016 accounted for 15,690 deaths in the United States alone [1]. EC is a complex disease that includes squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and other rarer histologic types. Risk factors are slightly different between the two major types but include sex, race, alcohol consumption, diet, and genetics [24]. Several genetic biomarkers are effective in predicting the prognosis of patients with EC, including TP53, CYCLIN D1, VEGF, COX-2, and HER-2 [5]. Moreover, treatment based on these molecular targets has improved survival outcomes in patients with this disease. For example, inhibitors of c-MET [6], EGFR [7], HER2 [8], and VEGR [9] have been demonstrated to extend survival in these patients. However, drug resistance remains a major concern, and not all patients benefit from targeted therapy. Therefore, novel biomarkers are required to provide insight into the molecular mechanism of EC, identify novel diagnostic methods, and increase the number of treatment options available.

P21 (WAF1/CIP1), a member of the P21/P27/P57 family, is a universal cell cycle inhibitor regulated by P53. P21 plays an essential role in the control of cell growth, terminal differentiation, stem cell phenotypes, apoptosis, and cellular stress response. P21 has also been reported to participate in the proliferation of all types of cells. The expression of P21 is altered by wild-type P53 when DNA is damaged, resulting in cell cycle arrest or apoptosis at the G1 checkpoint. P21 plays a vital role in limiting proliferation and tumor growth, and abnormal expression of this gene has been observed in various types of malignancy. Recent research by Xie and colleagues [10] suggests that overexpression of P21 is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, while the loss of P21 protein expression could be a significant predictor of disease progression in patients with pancreatic cancer [11]. A further study demonstrated that aberrant expression of the P21 protein is associated with vascular invasion, pathological disease stage, and overall survival in patients with gastric cancer [12]. Interestingly, Goan et al. reported that overexpression of P21 predicted an unfavorable survival outcome in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma [13] while other researchers found a significant association of low P21 expression with shorter survival in patients with the disease [14, 15]. Furthermore, P21 was found to regulate apoptosis in acute myeloid leukemia cells and malignant glioma cells [16, 17]. Thus, although there is an association of P21 expression with various types of cancer, the impact of the P21 level on the disease progression and prognosis of EC remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the potential contribution of P21 expression to the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of EC.

2. Method and Materials

2.1. Search Strategy

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP, SinoMed, and Wanfang databases were electronically searched up to 30 September 2019. The following search terms were used: (((((((((((((P21) OR CIP1) OR SDI1) OR WAF1) OR CAP20) OR CDKN1) OR CDKN1A) OR P21CIP1) OR MDA-6)) OR P21WAF1)) OR “cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor P21”[Mesh])) AND ((“esophageal neoplasms”[MESH]) OR (((((esophageal cancer) OR esophageal carcinoma) OR esophageal tumor) OR esophageal malignan) OR esophageal neoplas).

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) the subjects were patients diagnosed with any type of EC; (2) P21 expression in tissue or serum was detected by Western blot, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), immunohistochemistry, or RNA sequencing; (3) the association of the P21 expression level with clinicopathological characteristics or the prognosis of EC was investigated; (4) the study population included more than 20 patients with EC; and (5) publication was written in the Chinese or English language. The following exclusion criteria were applied: publication as a review, abstract, experimental study, or letter and no key data provided for the evaluation of the relationship between differential expression of P21 and the clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes in patients with EC.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

The following data were collected and tabulated: the surname of the first author, year of publication, histologic type, sample size, country, specimen type, P21 detection assay used, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. The NOS score was used to assess the quality of the included studies as follows: >6, high quality; 5–6, medium quality; and <5, low quality.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the impact of P21 expression level on the survival outcome in patients with EC. The individual HRs and 95% CIs were extracted directly from the text by two investigators (JW and LL). A pooled and 95% CIs that did not overlap indicated a positive association between a lower P21 expression level and a poorer survival outcome. When the HR and 95% CIs for survival were not provided, estimates were calculated from the Kaplan-Meier curves according to the method described by Tierney et al. [18]. All data were extracted by two of the authors working independently (FW and LQ). The pooled ORs and associated 95% CIs were used to determine the association between the P21 expression level and the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with EC according to specimen type (tumor sample vs. normal control), age (younger vs. older), sex (male vs. female), differentiation (poor vs. well or moderate), tumor stage (III–IV vs. I–II), distant metastasis (yes vs. no), lymph node metastasis (yes vs. no), grade (G3–4 vs. G1–2), depth of invasion (III–IV vs. I–II), tumor size (large vs. small), tumor location (upper-middle vs. low), and clinical stage (III/IV vs. I/II). We also explored the relationship between P21 expression and other better-studied biomarkers of EC, including P53 and the apoptosis index. The ability of the P21 level to predict the efficacy of chemotherapy was analyzed by combining the ORs. As with the HRs, an indicated a positive correlation between decreased P21 expression and poor clinicopathological characteristics.

The statistic was used to classify the heterogeneity of the studies as low (), moderate (), substantial (), or high () [19]. A value for the statistic less than 0.10 or larger than 50% was defined as having statistically significant heterogeneity, and thus, a random-effect model was used. In contrast, a fixed-effect model was used when heterogeneity was not significant. Publication bias was quantified by Begg’s test and funnel plot analyses [20]. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata (version 12, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Eligible Studies

The literature search yielded 1523 citations in total. After removing 907 duplicates, 606 articles were deemed eligible for further evaluation. After screening the titles and abstracts, a further 539 studies were excluded, leaving 74 articles for full-text review. Finally, 45 studies involving 3098 patients with EC were included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1) [1315, 2162]. All studies were published between 1997 and 2016 and assessed the correlation between abnormal P21 expression and outcomes in patients with EC (Table 1). Thirty studies focused on the association of the P21 expression level with clinicopathological characteristics, and 15 assessed the ability of the P21 expression level to predict overall survival (Table 2). Twenty-seven studies were performed in China and 11 in Japan. Most of the included studies detected the P21 level by immunohistochemistry with cutoff values ranging from 1% to 50%, while the remaining studies used real-time PCR or Western blotting. Six studies with a score of 9 and 13 studies with a score of 8 were considered high quality, and 7 studies with were considered low quality.


Study and yearYearCancerSample sizeCountrySpecimen typeCutoff valueMethodNOS quality score

Wu 19951995Esophageal cancer40ChinaTissueNAImmunohistochemistry7
Ohashi 19971997SCC25JapanTissueNAImmunohistochemistry6
Toh 19971997SCC61JapanTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Jiang 19981998SCC46ChinaTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Sarbia 19981998SCC (surgical treatment)149GermanyTissue50%Immunohistochemistry9
Kuwahara 19991999SCC32JapanTissue10%Immunohistochemistry8
Lam 19991999SCC153Hong KongTissue50%Immunohistochemistry7
Natsugoe 19991999SCC111JapanTissue10%Immunohistochemistry8
Nita 19991999SCC62JapanTissue14Immunohistochemistry9
Shimada 19991999SCC116JapanTissue50%Immunohistochemistry8
Zhang 19991999Esophageal cancer38ChinaTissue5%Immunohistochemistry9
Fan 20002000Esophageal cancer56ChinaTissueNAImmunohistochemistry7
Liu 20002000SCC80ChinaTissue1%Immunohistochemistry8
Nakashida 20002000SCC30JapanTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Matsumoto 20012001SCC79JapanTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Zhan 20012001Esophageal cancer30ChinaTissue10%Immunohistochemistry6
Li 20022002AD35ChinaTissueNAImmunohistochemistry6
Cui 20032003SCC72ChinaTissue5%Immunohistochemistry8
Guner 20032003SCC63GermanyTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Zhang 20032003SCC43ChinaTissue0%Immunohistochemistry7
Li 20042004SCC80ChinaTissue25%Immunohistochemistry8
Li Li 20042004SCC48ChinaTissueNAImmunohistochemistry, ISH6
Nakamura 20042004SCC76JapanTissue10%Immunohistochemistry9
Chang 20052005Esophageal cancer118KoreaTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Goan 20052005SCC36ChinaTissue50%Immunohistochemistry8
Gu 20052005SCC (single surgery)50ChinaTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Gu 20052005SCC (surgery+chemotherapy)50ChinaTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Li 20052005SCC43ChinaTissue10%Immunohistochemistry9
Fan 20062006SCC40ChinaTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Liu 20062006SCC60ChinaTissue25%Immunohistochemistry6
Han 20072007SCC40TurkeyTissue10%Immunohistochemistry7
Ishida 20072007SCC32JapanTissue20%Immunohistochemistry8
Wang 20082008SCC48ChinaTissue25%Immunohistochemistry8
Zhang 20082008SCC45ChinaTissueNART-PCR7
Lin 20102010SCC148ChinaTissue10%Immunohistochemistry8
Taghavi 20102010SCC80IranTissue50%Immunohistochemistry8
Zhang 20102010SCC90ChinaTissueNAImmunohistochemistry7
Arsenijevic 20122012SCC41SerbiaTissueNAImmunohistochemistry6
Liu 20122012SCC189ChinaTissueNAImmunohistochemistry6
Li 20132013SCC48ChinaTissueNART-PCR7
Shiozaki 20132013SCC69JapanTissue30%Immunohistochemistry8
Zhang 20132013SCC51ChinaTissueNAWestern blot7
Zhang 20142014SCC62ChinaTissue50%Immunohistochemistry7
Cheng 20152015SCC80ChinaTissue25%Immunohistochemistry8
Lin 20162016SCC153ChinaTissue10%Immunohistochemistry9


StudyHRLLULSurvivalStatistical method

Sarbia M 19980.5560.3470.885OSMultivariable
Kuwahara M 19993.4091.3888.373OSMultivariable
Natsugoe S 19991.9201.0653.460OSSurvival curve
Shimada Y 19992.3981.4773.906OSMultivariable
Lam KY 19990.6270.4110.956OSSurvival curve
Nita ME 19991.7131.0222.871OSMultivariable
GUNER D 20030.4350.2000.943OSMultivariable
Nakamura T 20041.5301.0402.330OSMultivariable
Goan YG 20050.5490.3080.980OSMultivariable
Lin CD 20102.3221.0914.940OSUnivariate
Taghavi N 20103.9460.43030.860OSMultivariable
Liu J 20122.1391.1993.816OSSurvival curve
Shiozaki A 20132.3791.7003.313OSMultivariable
Zhang Y 20141.8671.0293.387OSMultivariable
Lin Y 20162.6231.0058.147OSMultivariable

Note: HR = hazard ratio; LL = lower confidence interval limit; UL = upper confidence interval limit; OS = overall survival.
3.2. Prognostic Value of P21 in Patients with EC

A meta-analysis of the 15 studies that reported overall survival yielded a pooled HR of 1.456 (95% CI: 1.033–2.053, , ), indicating a significant association between the P21-negative group and decreased survival time when compared with the P21-positive group. Significant heterogeneity was noted across the studies (, , Figure 2). Therefore, a random-effects model was used. Next, subgroup analyses of publication country, continent, sample size, cutoff value, and the statistical methods used to calculate the HRs were performed to explore the origin of the heterogeneity Ultimately, the country of publication might be a source of heterogeneity. The pooled HR of 2.05 indicated that a low P21 expression level was correlated with shorter survival time in the Japanese studies. Notably, the degree of heterogeneity in this group was reduced in the fixed-effects model (, ). However, obvious heterogeneity was also detected in the other subgroup analyses.

3.3. Correlation between P21 and Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients with EC

Decreased P21 expression was observed in tumors with poorer differentiation (pooled , 95% CIs 1.455–3.184). Significant heterogeneity was found between the studies (, , Figure 3(a)), so a random-effect model was used. There was a significant association of lower P21 expression with a higher tumor grade (pooled , 95% CI 2.278–5.071, , ). No significant heterogeneity was found between the studies (, , Figure 3(b)). Significant heterogeneity was found between the studies reporting on the clinical stage ( and ), so a random-effect model was used. There was a significant correlation between decreased P21 expression and an advanced clinical stage (pooled , 95% CI 1.111–2.594, , Figure 3(c)). There was also a significant correlation between P21 expression and lymph node metastasis (pooled , 95% CI 1.165–2.455, , ) in 23 studies, in which there was slight heterogeneity (, , Figure 4(a)). Lower P21 expression was significantly associated with a higher risk of invasion (pooled , 95% CI 1.328–2.83, ; , , Figure 4(b)). Moreover, a significant correlation was found between low P21 expression and a low apoptosis index (pooled , 95% CI 0.064–0.269, , ; , , Figure 4(c)). Importantly, there was a significant association between a high P21 expression level and a favorable response to chemotherapy (pooled , 95% CI 2.930–12.234, , ; , , Figure 5). However, there was no significant association between P21 expression and any other clinical parameters (Table 3).


Clinical parametersOR [95% CI]Begg’s test

Tissue2.210 [0.811-6.022]0.1211.55090.9%0.373
Age0.969 [0.716-1.312]0.8400.21081.8%0.732
Gender0.758 [0.566-1.015]0.0631.86085.4%0.484
Differentiation2.153 [1.455-3.184]3.84041.3%0.0230.185
Clinical stage1.616 [1.068-2.446]0.0230.00253.4%0.0020.096
Tumor stage0.885 [0.541-1.448]0.6270.49093.7%0.089
Lymph node1.691 [1.165-2.455]0.0062.76057.7%1.000
Metastasis0.637 [0.356-1.140]0.1291.52076.7%0.296
Grading3.399 [2.278-5.071]5.99031.0%0.1700.532
Invasion1.939 [1.328-2.830]0.0013.43058.9%0.788
Tumor size1.005 [0.602-1.675]0.9860.02036.0%0.1810.806
Tumor location0.971 [0.553-1.706]0.9180.10051.8%0.0340.917
P531.700 [0.918-3.148]0.0921.69063.6%0.0030.210
AI (apoptosis index)0.131 [0.064-0.269]5.55065.6%1.000
Chemotherapy effectivity5.987 [2.930-12.234]4.91044.3%0.462

OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
3.4. Sensitivity Analysis and Publication Bias

A sensitivity analysis confirmed that the results were not obviously impacted by any individual study, suggesting that the meta-analysis had good stability. The results of Begg’s test and the funnel plot did not indicate any publication bias (Figure 6, Table 3).

4. Discussion

There is accumulating evidence to suggest that abnormal expression of P21 is present in various types of malignancy, including gastric [63], lung [64], and tonsillar [65] cancers. However, the results of studies that have investigated the potential role of P21 expression are not consistent. To our knowledge, this meta-analysis contains the largest number of studies that have evaluated the association between P21 expression and the clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes in patients with EC. We found that overall survival in patients with EC was likely to be longer in those with higher P21 expression than in those with lower P21 expression. Our finding that decreased P21 expression was correlated with disease progression, that is, differentiation, lymph node metastasis, and invasion, as well as an advanced disease grade and clinical stage, indicates that P21 has a suppressor role in EC. A particularly important finding in this study was that P21 might be a valuable predictor of the effectiveness of chemotherapy.

In this study, there was a significant association between low P21 expression and a poorer outcome of EC. In contrast, high P21 expression has been reported to be an unfavorable prognostic factor in patients with prostate cancer [66] and breast cancer [67]. However, the results of yet other studies in patients with cervical adenocarcinoma [68] and bladder cancer [69] are consistent with our finding that P21 might act as a tumor suppressor. Like in our study, previous research showed significant associations between a low P21 level and advanced clinical stage and grade of bladder cancer, indicating that P21 has an important role in tumor progression [70]. A previous study in prostate cancer showed that P21 inhibits cell growth by targeting E2F1 [71]. It has been confirmed that P21 expression could be reduced by DDX3 in lung cancer, leading to inhibition of the growth of cancer cells. Wu and colleagues demonstrated that inhibition of P21 via the P53-DDX3 pathway may promote the proliferation of cancer cells and tumor growth in vitro and in vivo [69]. Moreover, it has been shown that P21 interacts with subunits of cyclin-dependent kinases [72], resulting in inhibition of tumor growth and progression. Finally, the tumor suppressor activity of P21 can be promoted by interaction with tumor-related factors like MYC, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT3) [7376].

This study has several limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting its results. First, according to the NOS criteria, the quality of the included studies was variable (ranging from a score of 6 to a score of 9). Second, several HR values and their respective 95% CIs were obtained from Kaplan-Meier curves, potentially leading to inaccurate results. The inclusion of univariate HRs without adjustment could also have contributed to heterogeneity. Third, the methodological differences between the studies may have resulted in the underestimation of the effect size. For example, most of the studies detected P21 expression by immunohistochemistry, but some used diverse methods, including Western blot and real-time quantitative PCR. The use of the streptavidin-peroxidase conjugate in some studies and the streptavidin-biotin complex method in others was also a potential source of heterogeneity. Another methodological difference was that the most common cutoff values for the detection of P21 were 10% and 50%, but this was not completely consistent across the studies. Inclusion of research published only in Chinese or English may have been another source of bias, given that negative results tend to be published in local journals. Furthermore, the number of studies included in this analysis was limited and we only restrict the patient number for the enrolled studies by a threshold of 20.

5. Conclusion

In this study, the results suggest that low P21 expression has a clinically important negative clinicopathological and prognostic impact in patients with EC. Well-designed studies that include larger patient cohorts are required to identify the mechanisms underlying how P21 is involved in the tumorigenesis and progression of EC.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Junbo Wu, Liang Liu, and Feng Wu contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (Nos. 81602391, 81502666, and 81802997), the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China (No. 2019CFA034), the Scientific and Technological Project of Shiyan City of Hubei Province (No. 17Y12), and the project of Shiyan Taihe Hospital (No. 2017JJXM006, 2017JJXM066).

References

  1. R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2017,” CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 7–30, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. N. Agrawal, Y. Jiao, C. Bettegowda et al., “Comparative genomic analysis of esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma,” Cancer Discovery, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 899–905, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. C. Mariette, L. Finzi, G. Piessen, I. van Seuningen, and J. P. Triboulet, “Esophageal carcinoma: prognostic differences between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma,” World Journal of Surgery, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 39–45, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. J. R. Siewert and K. Ott, “Are squamous and adenocarcinomas of the esophagus the same disease?” Seminars in Radiation Oncology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 38–44, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. M. Chen, J. Huang, Z. Zhu, J. Zhang, and K. Li, “Systematic review and meta-analysis of tumor biomarkers in predicting prognosis in esophageal cancer,” BMC Cancer, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 539, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. G. A. Watson, X. Zhang, M. T. Stang et al., “Inhibition of c-Met as a therapeutic strategy for esophageal adenocarcinoma,” Neoplasia, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 949–955, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. F. Sato, Y. Kubota, M. Natsuizaka et al., “EGFR inhibitors prevent induction of cancer stem-like cells in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by suppressing epithelial-mesenchymal transition,” Cancer Biology & Therapy, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 933–940, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. X. F. Guo, X. F. Zhu, G. S. Zhong, B. G. Deng, Z. T. Gao, and H. Wang, “Lapatinib, a dual inhibitor of EGFR and HER2, has synergistic effects with 5-fluorouracil on esophageal carcinoma,” Oncology Reports, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1639–1645, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. H. A. Burris 3rd, A. Dowlati, R. A. Moss et al., “Phase I study of pazopanib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin given every 21 days in patients with advanced solid tumors,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 1820–1828, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. D. Xie, L. Lan, K. Huang et al., “Association of p53/p21 expression and cigarette smoking with tumor progression and poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer patients,” Oncology Reports, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 2517–2526, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. Y. Sun, S. Yang, N. Sun, and J. Chen, “Differential expression of STAT1 and p21 proteins predicts pancreatic cancer progression and prognosis,” Pancreas, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 619–623, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. X. Liu, H. Yu, H. Cai, and Y. Wang, “Expression of CD24, p21, p53, and c-myc in alpha-fetoprotein-producing gastric cancer: correlation with clinicopathologic characteristics and survival,” Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 109, no. 8, pp. 859–864, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. Y. G. Goan, H. K. Hsu, H. C. Chang, Y. P. Chou, K. H. Chiang, and J. T. Cheng, “Deregulated p21WAF1 overexpression impacts survival of surgically resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients,” The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 1007–1016, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. Y. Lin, L. Y. Shen, H. Fu et al., “P21, COX-2, and E-cadherin are potential prognostic factors for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” Diseases of the Esophagus, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. S. Natsugoe, S. Nakashima, M. Matsumoto et al., “Expression of p21WAF1/Cip1 in the p53-dependent pathway is related to prognosis in patients with advanced esophageal carcinoma,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 2445–2449, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  16. X. Wu, N. Yang, W.-H. Zhou et al., “Up-regulation of P21 inhibits TRAIL-mediated extrinsic apoptosis, contributing resistance to SAHA in acute myeloid leukemia cells,” Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 506–518, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. B. Wagenknecht, M. Hermisson, K. Eitel, and M. Weller, “Proteasome inhibitors induce p53/p21-independent apoptosis in human glioma cells,” Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 117–125, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. J. F. Tierney, L. A. Stewart, D. Ghersi, S. Burdett, and M. R. Sydes, “Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis,” Trials, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 16, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. G. H. Guyatt, A. D. Oxman, R. Kunz et al., “GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 1294–1302, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. C. B. Begg and M. Mazumdar, “Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias,” Biometrics, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1088–1101, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  21. M. E. Nita, H. Nagawa, O. Tominaga et al., “p21Waf1/Cip1 expression is a prognostic marker in curatively resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, but not p27Kip1, p53, or Rb,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 481–488, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. M. Kuwahara, T. Hirai, K. Yoshida et al., “p53, p21(Waf1/Cip1) and cyclin D1 protein expression and prognosis in esophageal cancer,” Diseases of the Esophagus, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 116–119, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. K. Y. Lam, S. Law, L. Tin, P. H. Tung, and J. Wong, “The clinicopathological significance of p21 and p53 expression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: an analysis of 153 patients,” The American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 94, no. 8, pp. 2060–2068, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. Ishida, M. Morita, H. Saeki et al., “Expression of p53 and p21 and the clinical response for hyperthermochemoradiotherapy in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus,” Anticancer Research, vol. 27, no. 5B, pp. 3501–3506, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  25. U. Han, O. I. Can, S. Han, B. Kayhan, and B. U. Onal, “Expressions of p53, VEGF C, p21: could they be used in preoperative evaluation of lymph node metastasis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?” Diseases of the Esophagus, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 379–385, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. N. Taghavi, F. Biramijamal, M. Sotoudeh et al., “Association of p53/p21 expression with cigarette smoking and prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 16, no. 39, pp. 4958–4967, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, H. Yun, R. Lai, and M. Su, “Correlation of STAT1 with apoptosis and cell-cycle markers in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 12, article e113928, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. T. Nakamura, K. Hayashi, M. Ota, H. Ide, K. Takasaki, and M. Mitsuhashi, “Expression of p21(Waf1/Cip1) predicts response and survival of esophageal cancer patients treated by chemoradiotherapy,” Diseases of the Esophagus, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 315–321, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. H. Cheng, C. Chen, L. U. Liu, N. A. Zhan, and B. Li, “Expression of Smad4, TGF-βRII, and p21waf1 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma tissue,” Oncology Letters, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 2847–2853, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. M. Matsumoto, S. Natsugoe, S. Nakashima et al., “Clinical significance and prognostic value of apoptosis related proteins in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 598–604, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. A. Shiozaki, S. Nakashima, D. Ichikawa et al., “Prognostic significance of p21 expression in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” Anticancer Research, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 4329–4335, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  32. Y. Toh, H. Kuwano, K. Sonoda et al., “Correlation between reduced p21(WAF1/CIP1) expression and abnormal p53 expression in esophageal carcinomas,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 703–708, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. S. Nakashima, S. Natsugoe, M. Matsumoto et al., “Expression of p53 and p21 is useful for the prediction of preoperative chemotherapeutic effects in esophageal carcinoma,” Anticancer Research, vol. 20, no. 3B, pp. 1933–1937, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  34. T. Arsenijevic, M. Micev, V. Nikolic, D. Gavrilovic, S. Radulovic, and P. Pesko, “Is there a correlation between molecular markers and response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell esophageal cancer?” Journal of BUON, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 706–711, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  35. D. Guner, I. Sturm, P. Hemmati et al., “Multigene analysis of Rb pathway and apoptosis control in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma identifies patients with good prognosis,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 445–454, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. J. M. Liu, W. M. Liu, L. Feng, and G. Fu, “Analysis of the relationship between P~(21), nm23-H1 and invasion and metastasis of esophageal cancer,” China Medical Herald, vol. 3, no. 23, pp. 73-74, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  37. Y. Gu, D. Q. Sun, J. Qin, Z. Q. Feng, and W. M. Zhang, “The apoptosis and the expression of apoptosis-related proteins in esophageal cancers with and without preoperative chemotherapy,” Acta Academiae Medicinae Xuzhou, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 14–18, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  38. N. Zhang and J. F. Liu, “Association of P53/P21 expression with cigarette smoking, drinking and clinical characteristics in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus,” Journal of Esophageal Surgery, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6–11, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  39. L. D. Wang, W. C. Yang, Q. Zhou, Y. X. Li, and S. S. Gao, “Changes of WAF-1 and P53 expression in esophageal and precancerous lesions,” Journal of Henan Medical University, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 15–18, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  40. F. Fang, J. N. Fang, and X. C. Hao, “The clinical significance of apoptosis-related genes in esophageal cancer tissues,” Journal of Baotou Medicine, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1-2, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  41. L. M. Li, J. W. Wang, C. X. Ji, and Q. H. Liu, “Correlation analysis and expression of P53, P21waf, MDM2 and BAX in human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” Chinese Journal of Anatomy, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 26–28, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  42. B. H. Li, Z. F. Mao, Z. Y. Wu, and Z. Q. Wang, “Expression of Smad4, TpRII and P21 waf1 in esophageal squamous cancer tissue and its biological significance,” Medical Journal of Wuhan University, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 453–455, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  43. Y. F. Wang, Y. Z. Liu, and L. N. Li, “Expression of P21 proteins in tissues of esophageal squamous carcinoma,” Journal of Practical Diagnosis and Therapy, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 108-109, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  44. T. Jiang, Y. Zhao, and K. Liu, “The expression and relationship of WAF/CIP1 and p53 in esophageal carcinoma,” Chinese Journal of Experimental Surgery, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 218-219, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  45. F. Zhang, J. Peng, and B. L. Li, “Expression and significance of p21 protein in esophageal cancer and esophageal benign hyperplasia,” Journal of Bengbu Medical College, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 372-373, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  46. H. Zhang, Y. Y. Niu, and M. P. Hu, “Expression and significance of p53, p21, p16, cyclinD1 and CDK4 in esophageal squamous carcinoma,” Immunological Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 312–314, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  47. D. C. Lin, Z. Z. Shi, L. Y. Xue et al., “Expression of cell cycle related proteins cyclin D1, p53 and p21WAF1/Cip1 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” Hereditas, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 455–460, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. J. Cui, S. Li, and C. Xu, “The expression of cyclinD1 and p21waf1 in esophageal suquamous cell carcinogenesis,” Journal of Xinxiang Medical College, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 166–168, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  49. X. M. Zhan, G. X. Wang, S. W. Sun, J. Y. Wang, and L. Li, “Expression of p16, p21, p53, cyclin D1 and their siginificance on esophageal carcinoma,” The Practical Journal of Cancer, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 36–38, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  50. J. Zhang and L. Y. Wei, “Expressions of p21, cyclin D1 mRNA in esophageal carcinoma and its significance,” Medical Information Operations Sciences Fascicule, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 534–536, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  51. F. Li, X. F. Jiang, H. J. Wang, Z. L. Pang, M. H. Y. Gulinuer, and H. W. Li, “Expressions of PTEN and p21 genes in Hazak patients with esophageal cancer,” Tianjin Medical Journal, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 852–854, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  52. C. X. Fang, Y. P. Deng, and Z. F. Xie, “Immunohistochemistry analysis of p53, p21 and nm23 expression in esophageal cancer,” Chinese Journal of Laboratory Diagnosis, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 22-23, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  53. J. Liu, S. L. Chen, W. Zhang, and Q. Su, “P21 WAF1 gene expression with P53 mutation in esophageal carcinoma,” World Chinese Journal of Digestology, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1350–1353, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  54. W. J. Li, Y. J. Li, and J. M. Li, “The significance of cyclin E and p21 exrepssion in Barrett esopealgus and and adenocarcinoma,” Chinese Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 50-51, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  55. L. Li, F. Y. Qi, L. F. Zuo, J. R. Li, and D. H. Zhang, “The significance of cyclinE and P21 waf1 expression in the esophageal epithelial carcinogenesis,” Journal of Practical Oncology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 504–507, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  56. M. S. Chang, H. Seung Lee, B. Lan Lee, Y. Tae Kim, J. Sang Lee, and W. H. Kim, “Differential protein expression between esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and dysplasia, and prognostic significance of protein markers,” Pathology - Research and Practice, vol. 201, no. 6, pp. 417–425, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. M. Sarbia, M. Stahl, A. zur Hausen et al., “Expression of p21WAF1 predicts outcome of esophageal cancer patients treated by surgery alone or by combined therapy modalities,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 2615–2623, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  58. K. Ohashi, T. Nemoto, Y. Eishi, A. Matsuno, K. Nakamura, and K. Hirokawa, “Expression of the cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor p21WAF1/CIP1 in oesophageal squamous cell carcinomas,” Virchows Archiv, vol. 430, no. 5, pp. 389–395, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. Y. Shimada, M. Imamura, G. Watanabe et al., “Prognostic factors of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma from the perspective of molecular biology,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 80, no. 8, pp. 1281–1288, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. J. Liu, Y. Hu, W. Hu et al., “Expression and prognostic relevance of p21WAF1 in stage III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” Diseases of the Esophagus, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 67–71, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. W. Zhang, M. J. Jing, and S. J. Li, “Prognostic significance of tumor supressor P21CIP1/WAF1 expression in esophageal carcinoma,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 147-148, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  62. M. Y. Wu, R. M. Zheng, and J. Shen, “The expression of P21 CIP1/WAF1 in carcinoma of the esophagus and its relation to prognosis,” Cancer, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 97-98, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  63. L. Y-W, R. Xia, K. Lu et al., “LincRNAFEZF1-AS1 represses p21 expression to promote gastric cancer proliferation through LSD1-Mediated H3K4me2 demethylation,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 16, p. 39, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. D. Yin, X. Lu, J. Su et al., “Long noncoding RNA AFAP1-AS1 predicts a poor prognosis and regulates non–small cell lung cancer cell proliferation by epigenetically repressing p21 expression,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 17, no. 1, article 92, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. H. C. Hafkamp, J. J. Mooren, S. M. Claessen et al., “P21Cip1/WAF1 expression is strongly associated with HPV-positive tonsillar carcinoma and a favorable prognosis,” Modern Pathology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 686–698, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. S. Aaltomaa, P. Lipponen, M. Eskelinen, M. Ala-Opas, and V. M. Kosma, “Prognostic value and expression of p21(waf1/cip1) protein in prostate cancer,” The Prostate, vol. 39, pp. 8–15, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. Z. Winters, N. Hunt, M. Bradburn et al., “Subcellular localisation of cyclin B, Cdc2 and p21WAF1/CIP1 in breast cancer: association with prognosis,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 37, no. 18, article S0959804901003276, pp. 2405–2412, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. X. Lu, T. Toki, I. Konishi, T. Nikaido, and S. Fujii, “Expression of p21WAF1/CIP1 in adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a possible immunohistochemical marker of a favorable prognosis,” Cancer, vol. 82, no. 12, pp. 2409–2417, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. D. W. Wu, W. S. Liu, J. Wang, C. Y. Chen, Y. W. Cheng, and H. Lee, “Reduced p21 (WAF1/CIP1) via alteration of p53-DDX3 pathway is associated with poor relapse-free survival in early-stage human papillomavirus-associated lung cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 1895–1905, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. H. Puhalla, F. Wrba, D. Kandioler et al., “Expression of p21 (Wafl/Cip1), p57(Kip2) and HER2/neu in patients with gallbladder cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 27, no. 3B, pp. 1679–1684, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  71. Z. Hu, D. Zhang, J. Hao et al., “Induction of DNA damage and p21-dependent senescence by Riccardin D is a novel mechanism contributing to its growth suppression in prostate cancer cells in vitro and in vivo,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 397–407, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. C. J. Sherr and J. M. Roberts, “CDK inhibitors: positive and negative regulators of G1-phase progression,” Genes & Development, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1501–1512, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. H. Kitaura, M. Shinshi, Y. Uchikoshi, T. Ono, S. M. Iguchi-Ariga, and H. Ariga, “Reciprocal regulation via protein-protein interaction between c-Myc and p21cip1/waf1/sdi1 in DNA replication and transcription,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 275, no. 14, pp. 10477–10483, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. Z. Wei, X. Jiang, H. Qiao et al., “STAT3 interacts with Skp2/p27/p21 pathway to regulate the motility and invasion of gastric cancer cells,” Cellular Signalling, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 931–938, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. X. H. Liao, D. L. Lu, N. Wang et al., “Estrogen receptor α mediates proliferation of breast cancer MCF-7 cells via a p21/PCNA/E2F1-dependent pathway,” The FEBS Journal, vol. 281, no. 3, pp. 927–942, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. S. Inoue, Z. Hao, A. J. Elia et al., “Mule/Huwe1/Arf-BP1 suppresses Ras-driven tumorigenesis by preventing c-Myc/Miz1-mediated down-regulation of p21 and p15,” Genes & Development, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1101–1114, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Junbo Wu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views415
Downloads292
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.