Table 1. The characteristics of studies included in this meta-analysis.
| Study | Year | Region | Tumor type |
Reference gene |
Sample size |
XIAT expression | HR (95% CI) Low/High |
Outcome | Expression level |
Method | NOS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | |||||||||||||||
| Total | LNM | DM | Total | LNM | DM | |||||||||||
| Dong-liang Chen [13] | 2016 | China | GC | GAPDH | 106 | 52 | 31 | 8 | 54 | 44 | 20 | 0.41 (0.20–0.86) | OS | ↑ | qRT-PCR | 8 |
| Lei Ma [19] | 2017 | China | GC | GAPDH/U6 | 98 | 53 | 22 | - | 45 | 33 | - | 0.53 (0.30–0.91) | OS | ↑ | qRT-PCR | 7 |
| Peng Song [22] | 2016 | China | NPC | GAPDH/U6 | 108 | 32 | - | - | 76 | - | - | 0.58 (0.27–1.24) | OS | ↑ | qRT-PCR | 8 |
| Wei Wei [23] | 2017 | China | PC | RNU6B | 64 | 32 | 11 | 11 | 32 | 17 | 18 | 0.44 (0.22–0.89) | OS | ↑ | qRT-PCR | 7 |
| G.-L. LI [15] | 2017 | China | OSC | GAPDH | 145 | 70 | - | 14 | 75 | - | 30 | 0.59 (0.37–0.94) | OS | ↑ | qRT-PCR | 8 |
| Xiaoliang Wu [24] | 2017 | China | ESCC | GAPDH | 127 | 63 | - | - | 64 | - | - | OS:0.58 (0.34–1.01) DFS:0.51 (0.31–0.84) |
OS/DFS | ↑ | qRT-PCR | 8 |
| Yichao Mo [21] | 2017 | China | HCC | GAPDH/U6 | 88 | 50 | - | - | 38 | - | - | 0.39 (0.21–0.69) | DFS | ↑ | qRT-PCR | 7 |
| Weijie Ma [20] | 2017 | China | HCC | GAPDH | 68 | 38 | - | - | 30 | - | - | 2.53 (1.18–5.44) | OS | ↓ | qRT-PCR | 8 |
| Reiko Kobayashi [14] | 2016 | Japan | CSCC | GAPDH | 49 | 25 | 6 | - | 24 | 11 | - | 1.54 (0.40–5.94) | OS | ↓ | RTqPCR | 7 |
Abbreviations: GC, gastric cancer; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma; PC, pancreatic cancer; OSC, osteosarcoma; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; CSCC, cervical squamous cell carcinoma; LNM, lymph node metastasis; DM, distant metastasis; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease free survival; HR: hazard ratios; CI: confidence intervals.