IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0240729.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The clinicopathological features and prognosis of primary pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Liansha Tang
  • Nan Chen
  • Wenbo He
  • Jian Zhou
  • Jinjue Zhang
  • Zhangyu Lin
  • Zihuai Wang
  • Jianqi Hao
  • Feng Lin

Abstract

Background: Primary pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (PPLELC) was a sparse subtype of unclassified lung cancer. The clinicopathologic features, prognostic factors and multimodality treatment regimens of LELC remain inconclusive. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to address this deficit in current knowledge. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to filtrate studies investigating on clinical features and prognostic factors of LELC up to Sep 9th, 2020. Fixed and random effect models were generated to present the incorporated hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality and heterogeneity of the included studies were also evaluated carefully. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 13 retrospective studies with a total of 1294 patients. The incidence of programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in PPLELC varied from 63.3% to 75.8%. Positive PD-L1 expression was more likely to be found in patients under 60 years old (OR = 2.16, 95%CI: 1.19–3.89, P = 0.01) and was associated with worse disease-free survival (DFS) compared with negative PD-L1 expression (HR = 2.99, 95%CI: 1.23–7.28, P = 0.02). The pooled results showed that stage was the prognostic factor for both overall survival (OS) and DFS. Moreover, a significantly better outcome of PPLELC was observed in men (HR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.33–0.95, P = 0.03) and patients who received radiation (HR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.22–0.96, P = 0.04). Conclusion: PD-L1 expression was high in PPLELC patients. It was significantly associated with age under 60 and the unfavorable DFS. Stage and gender could be the prognostic factor for OS. Radiation could be the effective therapy for PPLELC.

Suggested Citation

  • Liansha Tang & Nan Chen & Wenbo He & Jian Zhou & Jinjue Zhang & Zhangyu Lin & Zihuai Wang & Jianqi Hao & Feng Lin, 2020. "The clinicopathological features and prognosis of primary pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0240729
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240729
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240729&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0240729?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yawen Guo & Pan Yu & Zeming Liu & Yusufu Maimaiti & Shan Wang & Xingjie Yin & Chunping Liu & Tao Huang, 2016. "Prognostic and Clinicopathological Value of Programmed Death Ligand-1 in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yawen Guo & Pan Yu & Zeming Liu & Yusufu Maimaiti & Chen Chen & Yunke Zhang & Xingjie Yin & Shan Wang & Chunping Liu & Tao Huang, 2017. "Prognostic and clinicopathological value of GATA binding protein 3 in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0240729. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.