Table 5.

Summary of previous MUC5AC studies

Author and year	Analyzable tumors	Antibody	Cut-off/score	Expression frequency (%)	Prognosis	Phenotype
Li et al. (2019) [12]	Meta-anaylsis	Different	Different	15–60	Favorable	No association
Mesa et al. (2020) [28]	88	292-M94	Score: percentage and intensity	37–59	–	–
Hiromoto et al. (2018) [19]	–	NCL-MUC-5AC	Score: percentage and intensity	26–53	–	–
Al-Khayal et al. (2016) [15]	22	sc-33667	Score: percentage and intensity	0	–	–
Betge et al. (2016) [17]	381	45M1	> 50% positive tumor cells	8–42	Favorable	–
Krishn et al. (2016) [24]	–	45M1	Score: percentage and intensity	38	–	–
Kesari et al. (2015) [11]	50	CLH2	> 30% positive tumor cells	25	–	No association
Kim et al. (2015) [22]	274	NCL-MUC-5AC	≥ 10% positive tumor cells	35	–	–
Raghoebir et al. (2014) [32]	32	45M1	≥ 5% tumor cells with high staining intensity	27–90	–	–
Tsai et al. (2015) [33]	123	CLH2	Score: percentage and intensity	55	–	–
Nishida et al. (2014) [29]	265	CLH2	≥ 20% positive tumor cells	17	–	–
Imai et al. (2013) [20]	250	CLH2	Score: percentage and intensity	30–95	Favorable	Inverse
Walsh et al. (2013) [34]	649	45M1	> 0% positive tumor cells	49	–	Associated
Khanh et al. (2013) [21]	206	CLH2	score: percentage and intensity	34	Favorable	No association
Matsuda et al. (2010) [27]	569	CLH2	/	15	–	–
Arai et al. (2007) [16]	35	CLH2	≥ 25% positive tumor cells	63	–	–
Park et al. (2006) [30]	194	CLH2	≥ 10% positive tumor cells	47	–	–
Losi et al. (2004) [26]	136	45M1	Percentage of positive cells	20–54	–	–
Kocer et al. (2002) [23]	41	45M1	Score: percentage and intensity	34	Favorable	Inverse
Biemer-Hüttmann et al. (2000) [18]	93	Neomarkers	Score: percentage and intensity	41	–	No association
Lennerz (2016) [25]	33	–	–	45	Unfavorable	–
Perez et al. (2008) [31]	35	CLH2	Score: percentage and intensity	23	Favorable	No association
Wang et al. (2017) [35]	139	NCL-MUC5-AC	> 20% positive tumor cells	28	Favorable	Associated