Table 3.
Subgroup analysis of associations between OPCML methylation and ovarian cancer risk.
| Group | Studies | Case | Control | Fixed effects model | Random effects model | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | M | U | M | U | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | I2 (%) | P | |
| Country | |||||||||
| China | 7 | 308 | 125 | 43 | 338 | 27.47 (17.52, 43.08) | 38.17 (13.21, 110.28) | 70 | <0.01 |
| Poland | 1 | 20 | 23 | 0 | 4 | 7.85 (0.40, 154.75) | 7.85 (0.40, 154.75) | – | – |
| Sample type | |||||||||
| Serum | 2 | 100 | 16 | 11 | 132 | 102.86 (39.37, 268.74) | 98.42 (38.37, 252.45) | 0 | 0.73 |
| Tissues | 6 | 228 | 132 | 32 | 210 | 18.22 (10.93, 30.36) | 19.13 (7.71, 47.44) | 39 | 0.15 |
| Control type | |||||||||
| NT | 4 | 122 | 46 | 2 | 73 | 52.77 (16.92, 164.55) | 47.94 (7.38, 311.27) | 53 | 0.09 |
| NT&BOT | 3 | 176 | 69 | 39 | 236 | 23.41 (13.96, 39.25) | 35.50 (6.38, 197.47) | 84 | <0.01 |
| AT&NT | 1 | 30 | 33 | 2 | 33 | 15.00 (3.31, 67.93) | 15.00 (3.31, 67.93) | – | – |
| Methods | |||||||||
| MSP | 4 | 194 | 85 | 41 | 236 | 19.52 (11.94, 31.92) | 21.78 (6.10, 77.79) | 76 | <0.01 |
| CCP-based FRET | 1 | 27 | 8 | 2 | 9 | 15.19 (2.71, 85.10) | 15.19 (2.71, 85.10) | – | – |
| Restriction enzyme related methods | 3 | 107 | 55 | 0 | 97 | 139.45 (24.06, 808.26) | 163.86 (31.13, 862.61) | 0 | 0.59 |
| Sample size | |||||||||
| <100 | 5 | 152 | 79 | 4 | 106 | 34.19 (14.11, 82.86) | 32.63 (8.42, 126.53) | 45 | 0.12 |
| ≥100 | 3 | 176 | 69 | 39 | 236 | 23.41 (13.96, 39.25) | 35.50 (6.38, 197.47) | 84 | <0.01 |
M, methylation; U, unmethylation; BOT, benign ovarian tissues; NT, normal ovarian tissues of cancer-free patients or healthy people; AT, Adjacent non-cancerous ovarian tissues; MSP, methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction; CCP-based FRET, a cationic conjugated polymer (CCP)-based fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET); Restriction enzyme related methods include methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme-polymerase chain reaction and restriction enzyme cut analysis.