Categories
Nevin Manimala Statistics

Clinicopathologic relevance of EpCAM and CD44 in pancreatic cancer: insights from a meta-analysis

Stem Cell Res Ther. 2025 Aug 27;16(1):463. doi: 10.1186/s13287-025-04601-1.

ABSTRACT

Recent evidence suggests that EpCAM and CD44 could serve as diagnosis or prognosis markers in pancreatic cancer (PC). In this meta-analysis, we evaluated their associations with clinicopathologic features. Specifically, we compared immunohistochemical-positive and -negative PC patients for T stage (T3-T4 vs. T1-T2), N stage (N1 vs. N0), M stage (M1 vs. M0), tumor grade (well/moderately vs. poorly differentiated), UICC Stage (III, IV vs. I, II), and overall survival (OS). The diagnostic meta-analysis was performed analysing the pooled sensitivity and specificity and evaluating overall accuracy to indicate the diagnostic efficacy of the markers. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO website under the registration number of CRD42024568390. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science was conducted on January 30th, 2025. The statistical analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.4 software and R language (R package Mada and Metafor). The quality of the studies included was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the QUADAS-2 tool. Data from relevant studies were independently screened and extracted using Rayyan, by at least two authors. A total of 19 studies were eligible (9 studies for EpCAM, 9 studies for CD44, and 2 studies for both EpCAM and CD44), comprising a total of 1370 patients. The diagnostic meta-analysis demonstrated moderate accuracy for EpCAM (AUC, 95% CI of 0.802, 0.69-0.96). A statistically significant association was found for CD44 expression and T-status (OR = 2.04, 95%CI = 1.18-3.51), or N-stage (OR = 2.68, 95%CI = 1.86-3.85), or TNM stage (OR = 3.79, 95%CI = 2.14-6.71). CD44v6 overexpression predicted worse OS (HR = 2.33, p < 0.00001), while EpCAM + CD44 + co-expression was prognostic (HR = 2.02, p = 0.02). Heterogeneity was not observed among the studies included, but further research is warranted to better understand the clinical implications of these markers’ positivity in PC diagnosis and prognosis.

PMID:40866982 | DOI:10.1186/s13287-025-04601-1

By Nevin Manimala

Portfolio Website for Nevin Manimala