Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 18;11(8):e0161219. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161219

Table 1. Clinicopathological parameters and quality scores of studies comparing HER3/HER4 positive GC with HER3/HER4 negative GC in Asian population.

HER family members Study Year Number of Patients Sex Age Tumor location Depth of invasion LN metastasis Distant metastasis TNM stage Recurrence Lauren’s type Vascular invasion Quality scorea
(male/female) (cardia/body+antrum) (T1+T2/T3+T4) (N0/N1+N2+N3) (M0/M1) (I+II/III+IV) (negative/positive) (intestinal/diffuse) (negative/positive)
HER3 Hayashi 2008 134(79 vs.55) 51/28vs.43/12 67vs.64 NA NA 21/58vs.41/14 64/15vs.53/2 NA 41/25vs.51/3 27/52vs.22/33 NA 8
Zhang 2009 102(14 vs.88) NA NA NA NA NA NA 3/11vs.49/39 NA 3/11vs.57/31 NA 5
Wu 2014 161(90 vs.71) 73/17vs.51/20 NA 43/47vs.28/43 19/71vs.30/41 31/59vs.37/34 81/9vs.68/3 NA NA 18/72vs.18/53 37/53vs.41/30 5
Tang 2015 121(75 vs.46) 52/23vs.33/13 NA NA 8/67vs.3/43 17/58vs.14/32 70/5vs.42/4 23/52vs.13/33 NA 20/55vs.4/40 NA 5
He 2015 498(103vs.395) 70/33vs.280/115 60vs.58 52/51vs.247/148 13/90vs.109/286 23/80vs.134/261 86/17vs.322/73 26/77vs.180/215 NA 88/15vs.196/199 NA 8
HER4 Hayashi 2008 134(115vs.19) 80/35vs.14/5 66vs.66 NA NA 51/64vs.11/8 103/12vs.14/5 57/58vs.9/10 81/24vs.11/4 46/69vs.3/16 NA 8
Li 2013 161(110vs.51) 82/28vs.42/9 NA 52/58vs.19/32 28/82vs.21/30 68/42vs.25/26 105/5vs.44/7 18/92vs.18/33 NA 23/87vs.13/38 49/61vs.29/22 5
He 2015 498(66vs.432) 45/21vs.305/127 60vs.59 39/27vs.260/172 10/56vs.112/320 14/52vs.143/289 54/12vs.354/78 NA NA 56/10vs.228/204 NA 8

Abbreviations: HER: human epidermal growth factor receptor; GC: gastric cancer; vs.: versus; NA: not available; TNM: depth of invasion (T), lymph nodes metastasis (N), and presence of distant metastasis (M).

T1-T4, N0-N3, M0-M1and TNM stages are based on tumor-node-metastasis classification advocated by International Union against Cancer

Quality scorea: use the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (stars)