Table 1.
Characteristics and results of eligible prognostic studies evaluating surviving
| First author, year | Country | N. of Patient | Method | Histological type | Duration of follow-up | N. of Positive | Cutoff value | Staining pattern | OS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| HR Estimate | HR | 95% CI | |||||||||
| Bedewy AM, 2013 | Egypt | 80 | IHC | B cell NHL | 30 | 32 | 30% | Nuclear staining | Sur. Curve | 0.79 | 0.15-4.06 |
| Guo RZ, 2003 | China | 62 | IHC | B cell NHL | 48 | 19 | 5% | Cytoplasmic staining | Sur. Curve | 1.41 | 0.91-2.18 |
| Huang HQ, 2006 | China | 83 | IHC | T cell NHL | 76 | 73 | 25% | NA | Sur. Curve | 0.62 | 0.17-2.21 |
| Karabatsou K, 2006 | UK | 44 | IHC | B/T cell NHL | 90 | 28 | Scores >2 | Nuclear staining | HR 95% CI | 0.57 | 0.29-1.13 |
| Li B, 2008 | China | 83 | IHC | B/T cell NHL | 70 | 52 | 5% | Cytoplasmic staining | Sur. Curve | 3.73 | 1.7-8.18 |
| Li JF, 2006 | China | 60 | IHC | T cell NHL | 96 | NA | 30% | Nuclear staining | Sur. Curve | 2.12 | 1.2-3.77 |
| el Aziz LM, 2014 | USA | 46 | IHC | B/T cell NHL | 24 | 33 | 10% | Cytoplasmic staining | Sur. Curve | 29.21 | Not applicable |
| Paydas S (a), 2009 | Turkey | 77 | IHC | DLBCL | 160 | 40 | NA | NA | Sur. Curve | 1.76 | 0.75-4.13 |
| Paydas S (b), 2008 | Turkey | 117 | IHC | B/T cell NHL | 160 | 74 | NA | NA | Sur. Curve | 2.22 | 0.67-7.36 |
| Yang WJ, 2008 | China | 52 | IHC | B/T cell NHL | 120 | 30 | NA | Nuclear or cytoplasmic staining | Sur. Curve | 1.58 | 0.71-3.51 |
| Zhang HY, 2010 | China | 128 | IHC | DLBCL | 88 | 84 | 5% | Cytoplasmic staining | Sur. Curve | 1.85 | 1.15-2.97 |
| Zhang ZJ, 2011 | China | 53 | IHC | DLBCL | 101 | 45 | Scores >3 | Nuclear or cytoplasmic staining | Sur. Curve | 2.26 | 0.27-19.2 |
N, number; IHC; DLBCL, diffuse large B cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; NA, no available; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.