The prognostic role of p53 mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
P53 is one of the most frequently mutated genes in colorectal cancer (CRC). The present study was undertaken to provide a solid estimate of the prognostic value of p53 mutations in metastatic CRC patients. This meta-analysis was done in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Item For Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 guidelines. Studies in English published in the last ten years were searched through PubMed and Google Scholar. Final selection criteria were: 1) association with overall survival, 2) presence of Hazard Ratios (HRs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs). The articles were evaluated for quality and risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and QUIPS tool, respectively. The meta-analysis was conducted with random-effects model according to the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method and results were depicted in classical Forest plots. Studies heterogeneity was determined by I 2 and Tau 2 statistics. The relationship between p53 mutation and clinic-pathological variables was examined using the χ 2 test. Nine articles met the eligibility criteria and went to the final analysis. Sample size ranged from 51 to 1043 patients. All studies were retrospective. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale score was > 6 in all studies, QUIPS risk of bias was low in 6, moderate in 3 studies. Only three studies analysed the entire p53 gene coding region. The DNA sequencing technological platforms varied from Sanger to NGS sequencing techniques. The p53 mutational frequencies ranged from 35.0 % to 73.0 %. A strong association ( p < 0.0001) emerged between p53 alteration and left-sided CRC. The final pooled HR ( p53 mutated vs p53 wild-type tumors) for overall survival was 1.30 (95 % CI: 0.75–2.25) at random-effects model. The available evidence does not support a prognostic role for p53 in metastatic CRC patients. Prospective studies, with larger sample sizes and consistent and harmonized methodology, are needed to explore the prognostic role of p53 in metastatic CRC patients. • P53 gene is frequently mutated in colorectal cancer. • Identification of molecular prognostic factors is a challenge. • First systematic review on p53 mutations in metastatic clinical setting. • Even if p53 mutations are crucial to neoplastic progression, their prognostic role is still unclear.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".