Abstract
The outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC) can be improved by the identification of prognostic biomarkers. This systematic review of observational cohort and case-control studies was conducted to investigate the role of Endoglin (CD105) in the prognosis of CRC. The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched to identify the qualified studies using the relevant keywords. After the removal of duplicate articles, the screening was implemented on the titles, abstracts, and potential full-text articles. Afterward, the eligible cohort and case-control studies were identified, and the data were extracted into an Excel datasheet. In total, 11 observational cohort studies and 1 case-control study were identified to be eligible for this systematic review. The majority of the included studies achieved a moderate to high-degree quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Moreover, the eligible studies included a total of 1,400 patients with CRC and mean age of 60 years, the majority of whom were male. Endoglin was observed to be more upregulated in colorectal carcinomas and associated with poor survival outcomes, compared to healthy controls. The levels of Endoglin seem to reflect the degree of cancer invasiveness, therefore predicting dismal prognosis in patients with CRC. Larger and well-designed clinical studies with longer follow-up intervals are needed to investigate the role of Endoglin and its association with cancer metastasis.
Keywords: angiogenesis, biomarker, colorectal cancer, Endoglin (CD105), systematic review, TGF-β family
Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is considered the third most common cancer worldwide. The overall mortality rate due to CRC was estimated to be 8.9/100.000 in 2018, and the age-standardized incidence rate was high up to 19.7/100.000 [1]. It is predicted that 40–50% of the newly diagnosed CRC patients will have a relapse despite the recent advances in CRC management. Therefore, there is a need for novel biomarkers that would help in the early detection of this disease [2].
Many commonly used clinical and pathological features help predict the prognosis of CRC. These features include the tumor depth of invasion, tumor grade, lymph node status, and presence of metastasis in the liver [3]. However these prognostic parameters often fail to provide accurate prognostic patient stratification. Consequently, novel biomarkers will help predict CRC, thereby fostering better and more accurate treatment protocols for CRC [4].
Patients with less advanced stages of CRC are usually treated by curative resection. Nevertheless, subjects with stages II and III CRC typically require postresection adjuvant chemotherapy [5]. The value of adjuvant chemotherapy is well-established in stage III patients. However, its role is not consistent in the case of stage II CRC subjects with high-risk features [6]. The better identification of CRC prognostic biomarkers would help stratify subgroups of stage II CRC with a higher possibility of recurrence. Therefore, this strategy has the possibility to decrease the burden of CRC patients [7].
Carcinogenesis is chiefly associated with the processes of apoptosis, formation of new blood vessels, and modifications in cellular proliferation [8]. Several studies have shown an inverse relationship between the apoptotic index (AI) and survival rates [9–11]. Alcaide et al. [12) reported that CRC patients with high AI also had low disease-free and overall survival rates. Angiogenesis plays a vital role not only in CRC growth but also in its progression and metastasis to other organs [13]. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is associated with the formation of new blood vessels that characterizes the process of angiogenesis in CRC [14, 15]. The process of angiogenesis can be traced and identified using the panendothelial markers, such as the cluster of differentiation 31, cluster of differentiation 34, and CD105 (Endoglin) [16].
Endoglin, a coreceptor of the transforming growth factor-beta family, has been proved as a marker of neovascularization in solid malignancies, including CRC [17]. Endoglin is excessively expressed in tumor vessels and increases the chances of cancer metastasis [18,19]. Therefore, a series of studies have revealed the role of Endoglin in the prediction of CRC prognosis and treatment [4,16,20–29]. With this background in mind, the present study aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of Endoglin expression in patients with CRC using a systematic review approach.
Materials and methods
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was strictly followed during the current review [30]. Moreover, all the study steps were performed in strict accordance with the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses [31]. The question behind the research strategy following the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format is whether Endoglin is a prognostic biomarker for CRC patients.
Literature search strategy
The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), were searched since the inception up to November 2020 using the keywords of (“Endoglin” OR “soluble Endoglin”) OR “CD105” AND (“Colorectal” OR “colon” OR “colonic” OR “rectal” AND “cancer” OR “carcinoma”).
Eligibility criteria and study selection
All the observational cohort studies (i.e., prospective or retrospective] in addition to case-control studies meeting the following criteria were included in this study. The inclusion criteria were localized and locally-advanced stage of CRC, condition (i.e., level of Endoglin marker), outcomes (i.e., angiogenesis biomarker, survival and remission rates), and study design (i.e., observational cohort and case-control studies). The citations of animal studies, studies published in languages other than English, review articles, editorial letters, and proceedings were excluded from the study.
Screening and study selection
The study screening and selection processes were initiated after performing the searching step. All the potential records were screened by two reviewers in two phases, namely title/abstract and full-text screening. Additionally, the reference lists of the included studies were screened for relevant citations. Any article causing disagreements between the two reviewers was reevaluated by the third author and discussed in order to achieve a consensus.
Data extraction
Excel sheets were used to accomplish the data extraction, which was performed by two reviewers. Moreover, the data extraction process was conducted to extract the baseline characteristics of the study participants, risk of bias domains, follow-up period, and survival outcomes. Any disagreement was resolved through a panel discussion.
Risk of bias assessment
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for the assessment of the bias within the included studies. The NOS scores are within the range of 0–8, and the quality appraisal was freely directed by two reviewers. High-quality studies were scored 6 or higher, while low-quality ones were scored below 6. Any disagreement between the examiners was settled by a conversation with the third specialist.
It should be mentioned that all the studies included in this systematic review were scored 6 or above. The observational cohort studies were screened regarding the bias domains of selection (i.e., revising the selection process of the studied cohort), comparability (i.e., inter-group comparability of the cohort group), and outcome (i.e., how was the intended outcome measured? was the follow-up period long enough for outcomes to occur?)
Furthermore, case-control studies were revised in terms of the bias domains of selection (i.e. describing the selection process for case and control groups and establishing a clear definition for cases and controls), comparability (i.e. comparability of the cases and controls based on the design or analysis method), and exposure (i.e. have the cases been already reported with the disease?).
Results
Search results
The primary search using the predefined keywords led to the identification of 93 studies. Duplicate references could be omitted using the Endnote software (version X9); accordingly, 48 articles were obtained. In total, 40 papers were eligible for full-text screening after performing the title and abstract screening step. Subsequently, nine retrospective cohort studies, two prospective cohort studies, and one case-control study met the inclusion criteria of the current study and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Figure 1 illustrates the process of study selection.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow chart of the study selection.
Patient characteristics
A total of 1,400 patients with CRC, mean age of 60 years, 55% male and 45% female, were included in the present systematic review;. The mean follow-up period in the included studies was 25 months, ranging from 1 month to 13 years. Regarding the tumor characteristics, the majority of the CRCs in the current review were classified as stages II and III, and most of them were moderately differentiated. Furthermore, 70% of the lesions were in the colon; however, 30% of them were in the rectum. The size of the lesion was within the range of 5–10 cm in 62% of the included patients.
Histopathology results showed a predominance of adenocarcinoma type over mucinous type. In total, 40% of the colorectal tumors in the current study were classified as stage II disease. The mean overall survival reported was 43 months; nevertheless, the mean progression-free survival was 49 months. The majority of the included studies demonstrated that Endoglin overexpression was associated with a poor prognosis of CRC.
The presence of liver metastasis in the CRC patients was reported in three studies [16,24,29]. In addition, Bal et al. [24] and Saad et al. [21] demonstrated the incidence of distant metastases from the liver in their patients. Likewise, Li et al. [28] and Mitselou et al. [29] estimated the incidence rates of cancer-attributed mortality at 91.25% and 17.3%, respectively.
Out of 12 included studies, eight studies had patients with positive infiltrated lymph nodes [16,21,22,24–26,28,29]. The rate of positive infiltrated lymph nodes was reported within the range of 22–100% in a study performed by Gomceli et al. [26]. Moreover, the patients had lympho-vascular invasion in four studies [4,16,26,29]; nevertheless, two studies only mentioned the occurrence of perineural invasion [4,26]. Table I tabulates the baseline characteristics of the included patients in this systematic review.
Table I.
Baseline characteristics of included patients.
| Reference | Country | Study population | Study design | Age (mean ± standard deviation) | Characteristics of patients | Endoglin evaluation | Overall survival (month) | Progression-free survival (month) | Outcome | Summary of findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akagi et al. 2002 [23] | Japan | 74 | Retrospective cohort | - | Endoscopically resected colorectal adenomas T1, T2 surgically resected colorectal adenocarcinoma |
FFPE2 | - | - | Endoglin value in microvessel quantification in CRC carcinogenesis | Endoglin is an effective marker in the assessment of angiogenesis in CRC development |
| Bal et al. 2019 [24] | Turkey | 47 | Prospective cohort | 58.5±9.6 | Metastatic CRC1 patients treated with bevacizumab containing chemotherapy | Serum | Mean: 20.8 Standard error: 1.5 95% confidence interval: 17.8–23.7 |
Mean: 17.5 Standard error: 1.3 95% confidence interval: 14.9–20 |
Endoglin prognostic value for bevacizumab treatment response | No significance in prediction of treatment response (We checked the data - all are compliant. The information is expressed as non-median averages - median only for follow-up - for OS, PFS mean - even in the Kaplan graphs - tab = mean) |
| Dassoulas et al. 2010 [25] | Greece | 99 | Retrospective cohort | 69.34±11.59 | Surgically treated CRC patients | FFPE | - | - | Association between Endoglin and VEGF3 expression and correlation with clinico-pathological characteristics and survival | Endoglin and VEGF were positively correlated; increased Endoglin MVD4 was linked to decreased overall survival |
| Gomceli et al. 2012 [26] | Turkey | 80 | Case-control study | 62 | Surgically treated stage III CRC patients, healthy control group | Serum | - | - | Predictive value of preoperative Endoglin levels for recurrence in stage III CRC | No relation could be observed between Endoglin levels and risk of recurrence nor with any clinico-pathological characteristics |
| Hawinkels et al. 2010 [27] | Netherlands | 48 | Retrospective cohort | . | Surgically treated CRC patients, healthy control group | Plasma | - | - | Role of soluble Endoglin in angiogenesis | Soluble Endoglin has antiangiogenic properties and inhibits VEGF induced angiogenesis |
| Li et al. 2003 [28] | UK | 111 | Retrospective cohort | 69.5 | Surgically treated CRC patients | FFPE | Median: 67.2 Range: 3.6–96 |
- | Prognostic value of Endoglin stained MVD | High Endoglin-stained MVD predicts poor survival |
| Mitselou et al. 2016 [29] | Greece | 69 | Retrospective cohort | 64.58±7.2 | Surgically treated CRC patients | FFPE | - | - | Association between Syndecan-1, E-cadherin/β-catenin, platelet-derived endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1, and Endoglin | Endoglin expression was linked to E-cadherin, β-catenin, and syndecan-1; Endoglin MVD was associated with Dukes’ stage, vascular invasion, lymph node and liver metastasis, disease recurrence, and worse survival |
| Mohamed et al. 2019 [16] | Egypt | 50 | Retrospective cohort | 50 | Surgically treated CRC patients | FFPE | - | - | Prognostic value of Endoglin MVD | High Endoglin MVD was associated with tumor size, high grade, lymph node invasion, advanced stage, and poor survival |
| Moreira et al. 2011 [20] | Brazil | 60 | Retrospective cohort | 60 | Surgically treated CRC patients | FFPE | - | - | Role of angio- and lymphangio- vascular density in CRC prognosis | No prognostic value for Endoglin MVD |
| Redondo et al. 2019 [4] | Spain | 487 | Prospective cohort | 68.1 | Surgically treated CRC patients | FFPE | Mean: 38.5 95% confidence interval: 36.4–40.6 |
- | Prognostic value of Endoglin in 2-year survival and clinicopathological features | No association between Endoglin expression and short-term survival or clinicopathological features except [Only MEAN) age |
| Romani et al. 2006 [22] | Italy | 125 | Retrospective cohort | 65.6 | Surgically treated CRC patients | FFPE | Mean: 45.3 Standard deviation: 5.42 | - | Role of Endoglin in angiogenesis in CRC metastasis | Endoglin vessel count may detect patients at risk for metastatic disease |
| Saad et al. 2004 [21] | USA | 150 | Retrospective cohort | 72±9 | Surgically treated CRC patients | FFPE | - | - | Comparison of CD31 and Endoglin as a marker for MVD; Endoglin prognostic value in CRC | Endoglin was superior to CD31 in evaluation of MVD; Endoglin MVD was linked to angiolymphatic invasion, lymph node, and liver metastases |
Colorectal cancer;
Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded;
Vascular endothelial growth factor;
Microvascular density
Quality assessment of included studies
The quality of the included studies was moderate up to high according to the NOS assessment tool. The authors’ judgment with justifications of the decisions regarding the quality assessment domains is provided in Supplementary file 1.
Role of Endoglin expression in predicting the prognosis of colorectal cancer
Endoglin was upregulated in tumor tissue, compared to normal tissue, as observed in the studies using control groups with benign colorectal masses or healthy controls [20,26,29]. According to Romani et al., [22] there was no correlation between the increase in CD105 levels and change in the site of CRC. Mohamed et al. [16] showed a correlation between high levels of Endoglin and an increase in tumor size. Although this relationship was not proved in the study conducted by Saad et al. [21] regarding the histologic types of colorectal carcinoma, high CD105 levels were associated with mucinous histologic type [16].
In another study, nonmucinous types of CRC had elevated Endoglin levels [18]. High microvascular density (MVD) values given by CD105 were associated with a high incidence of lymph node metastases in two studies [16, 21]. Nonetheless, the MVD values had no significant association with lymph node status in another study [28].
Dassoulas et al. used a cut-off value of 7.3% in the MVD for the evaluation of its prognostic value. In the aforementioned study, a group of CRC patients with MVD of higher than 7.3% was reported with significantly lower overall-survival outcomes than the other group [25]. Similarly, Gomceli et al. [26] observed that the levels of soluble Endoglin were not significantly different between the group with local recurrence of CRC and the group with no local recurrence.
According to a study conducted by Gomceli et al., there was a positive correlation between Dukes’ stages and plasma Endoglin level detected by sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [26]. Additionally, the MVD assessed by Endoglin levels was significantly associated with a change in Dukes’ stages, peritoneal infiltration, venous invasion, and tumor relapse in addition to liver and lymph node metastasis in a study performed by Mitselou et al. [29]. However, Hawinkels et al. revealed no apparent association between serum Endoglin levels and Dukes’ stages [27].
Discussion
Our study investigated the value of Endoglin expression in 1,400 CRC patients using a systematic review design, and demonstrated that Endoglin overexpression is associated with poor prognosis in CRC patients. Nine retrospective cohort studies [16,20–23,25,27–29], two prospective cohort studies [4,24], and one case-control study [26] were included. Overall, the quality of evidence was graded as moderate for the current systematic review and ranged from moderate to high for the cohort and case-control studies according to the NOS assessment tool. Based on the obtained results of this study, patients with CRC were observed to have upregulated CD105 expression in the tumor blood vessels. High levels of Endoglin were associated with lymph node metastasis, liver metastasis, and distant metastasis, and in some studies, with tumor size [16,26].
Mohamed et al. [16] demonstrated poor prognosis in CRC patients with high MVD counts, which were determined using CD105. High Endoglin levels were associated with an advanced stage of CRC, worse histologic type, increased nodal metastasis, higher tumor grade, and increased tumor size [16]. In addition, the presence of the metastatic foci in the liver of CRC patients was significantly correlated with the level of Endoglin receptors in a study conducted by Saad et al. [21]. In contrast, Hawinkels et al. [27] showed no statistically significant relationship between CD105 levels in CRC biopsies with tumor size, grade, or histologic grade. Age and gender had no significant effects on the tumor prognosis, nor on cancer behavior.
In a study carried out by Martins et al., targeting Endoglin was suggested in the form of antiangiogenic therapy to combat CRC [32]. Endoglin levels were used for prediction of response to chemotherapeutic agents, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy in laryngeal and breast cancers [33–35]. Uronis et al. observed a statistically significant decrease in the plasma levels of Endoglin while using the chemotherapeutic agent (i.e., bevacizumab) in the treatment of patients with solid tumors [36]. A recent study by Nogués et al. [37] was conducted on 133 CRC patients aiming to assess the value of VEGF and CD105 as diagnostic and prognostic markers for CRC. The results showed that CD105 and VEGF had an essential role in the process of cancer angiogenesis and could be used as biomarkers.
Although most of the studies concerning Endoglin and cancer have focused on its role as a proangiogenic factor and its utility as an MVD marker, Endoglin has not proven clinical utility yet. On the one hand, using Endoglin in the clinics could be facilitated by the easiness of performing immunohistochemical or molecular techniques. On the other hand, technical issues and the use of different anti-endoglin monoclonal antibodies demonstrate differences in reactivity to endothelial cells and this is likely to result in differences in prognostic and therapeutic efficacy [38]. Optimal antibodies should be identified.
Presently, CRC patient prognostic assessment is based on clinicopathological features and focuses on the cancer stage at the time of diagnosis [39]. The main prognostic biomarker used in clinical care is the blood-based carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) [40].
Mutations in KRAS/NRAS, in BRAF, along with the mismatch repair gene deficiency microsatellite instability (MSI), are clinically used molecular biomarkers in CRC [41]. Most of these markers might inform clinicians of the overall patient prognosis, but they provide limited information for guiding therapeutic decisions, particularly for early-stage CRC. MSI status is a reliable prognostic marker that can identify “high-risk” early-stage CRC patients who lack benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Also, MSI has lately emerged as a predictor of immunotherapy-based treatment sensitivity [42,43]. However, there is a need to find novel predictive biomarkers which may improve these patients’ management.
A limitation of our systematic review is the restricted number of studies included. However, this is the reflection of the emerging role of Endoglin as a potential biomarker for CRC management. Other limitations of our systematic review include inconsistences in the design of the evaluated studies including short period of follow-up or lack of serial analysis of CRC patients over time.
Endoglin represents a promising biomarker to predict prognosis of CRC patients and to be associated with cancer metastasis. Well-designed prospective studies to further identify the role of Endoglin in CRC are warranted. While Endoglin has so far not been analyzed as a therapeutic target in CRC patients, our data point to the fact that this might be a promising approach. Additional preclinical and clinical studies will allow a better understanding of the role of CD105 required to improve treatment of CRC patients.
Conclusion
The CD105 levels seem to reflect the degree of cancer invasiveness that can predict the prognosis in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Therefore, larger and well-designed clinical studies with longer follow-up periods to investigate the role of this potential biomarker are required.
Supplementary Information
Table SI.
Quality assessment results for included case-control studies.
| Study ID | 4- Gomceli 2012 [26] |
|---|---|
| Selection (max. 4 *) | |
| 1) Is the case definition adequate? | * |
| 2) Representativeness of the cases | * |
| 3) Selection of controls | * |
| 4) Definition of controls | * |
| Comparability (max. 2*) | |
| 1) Comparability of cases and controls based on design or analysis | ** |
| Exposure (max. 4*) | |
| 1) Ascertainment of exposure | * |
| 2) Similar method of ascertainment for cases and controls | * |
| 3) Nonresponse rate | |
| Total | 8 |
Table SII.
Quality assessment results for included retrospective cohort studies.
| Study ID | 1-Akagi 2002 [23] | 2- Bal 2020 [24] | 3- Dassoula 2009 [25] | 5- Hawinkels 2010 [27] | 6- Li 2003 [28] | 7- Mitselou 2016 [29] | 8- Mohamed 2017 [16] | 9- Moreira 2011 [20] | 10- Redondo 2019 [4] | 11- Romani 2006 [22] | 12- Saad 2003 [21] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection (max. 4*) | |||||||||||
| Representativeness of exposed cohort | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Selection of nonexposed cohort | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Ascertainment of exposure | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Demonstrating that outcome of interest was not present at initiation of study | |||||||||||
| Comparability (max. 2*) | |||||||||||
| Comparability of cohorts based on design or analysis | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||
| Outcome (max. 5*) | |||||||||||
| Assessment of outcome | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||||
| Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||
| Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Total | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
Footnotes
Supplementary file 1. Quality assessment of included studies.
References
- 1.Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Das V, Kalita J, Pal M. Predictive and prognostic biomarkers in colorectal cancer: A systematic review of recent advances and challenges. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017;87:8–19. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2016.12.064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lindmark G, Gerdin B, Påhlman L, Bergström R, Glimelius B. Prognostic predictors in colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37:1219–1227. doi: 10.1007/BF02257785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Redondo M, Abitei C, Téllez T, Fúnez R, Pereda T, Rodrigo I, et al. Clinical-pathological characteristics and short-term follow-up associated with proliferation, apoptosis and angiogenesis in a prospective cohort of patients with colorectal tumours. Tumour Biol. 2019;42:1010428319835684. doi: 10.1177/1010428319835684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Brenner H, Kloor M, Pox CP. Colorectal cancer. Lancet. 2014;383:1490–1502. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61649-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kannarkatt J, Joseph J, Kurniali PC, Al-Janadi A, Hrinczenko B. Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: A Clinical Dilemma. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:233–241. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.017210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Araghi M, Soerjomataram I, Jenkins M, Brierley J, Morris E, Bray F, et al. Global trends in colorectal cancer mortality: projections to the year 2035. Int J Cancer. 2019;144:2992–3000. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Raskov H, Pommergaard HC, Burcharth J, Rosenberg J. Colorectal carcinogenesis - update and perspectives. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:18151–18164. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i48.18151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bendardaf R, Ristamäki R, Kujari H, Laine J, Lamlum H, Collan Y, et al. Apoptotic index and bcl-2 expression as prognostic factors in colorectal carcinoma. Oncology. 2003;64:435–442. doi: 10.1159/000070304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hilska M, Collan YU, O Laine VJ, Kössi J, Hirsimäki P, Laato M, et al. The significance of tumor markers for proliferation and apoptosis in predicting survival in colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:2197–2208. doi: 10.1007/s10350-005-0202-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Garrity MM, Burgart LJ, Mahoney MR, Windschitl HE, Salim M, Wiesenfeld M, et al. Prognostic value of proliferation, apoptosis, defective DNA mismatch repair, and p53 overexpression in patients with resected Dukes’ B2 or C colon cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1572–1582. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.10.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Alcaide J, Funez R, Rueda A, Perez-Ruiz E, Pereda T, Rodrigo I, et al. The role and prognostic value of apoptosis in colorectal carcinoma. BMC Clin Pathol. 2013;13:24. doi: 10.1186/1472-6890-13-24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Zuazo-Gaztelu I, Casanovas O. Unraveling the Role of Angiogenesis in Cancer Ecosystems. Front Oncol. 2018;8:248. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Chung AS, Lee J, Ferrara N. Targeting the tumour vasculature: insights from physiological angiogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10:505–514. doi: 10.1038/nrc2868. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ellis LM, Hicklin DJ. VEGF-targeted therapy: mechanisms of anti-tumour activity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8:579–591. doi: 10.1038/nrc2403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mohamed SY, Mohammed HL, Ibrahim HM, Mohamed EM, Salah M. Role of VEGF, CD105, and CD31 in the Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer Cases. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2019;50:23–34. doi: 10.1007/s12029-017-0014-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Dallas NA, Samuel S, Xia L, Fan F, Gray MJ, Lim SJ, et al. Endoglin (CD105): a marker of tumor vasculature and potential target for therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:1931–1937. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Paauwe M, ten Dijke P, Hawinkels LJ. Endoglin for tumor imaging and targeted cancer therapy. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2013;17:421–435. doi: 10.1517/14728222.2013.758716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Schoonderwoerd MJA, Goumans MTH, Hawinkels LJAC. Endoglin: Beyond the Endothelium. Biomolecules. 2020;10:289. doi: 10.3390/biom10020289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Moreira LR, Schenka AA, Latuf-Filho P, Penná AL, Lima CS, Soares FA, et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of vascular density and area in colorectal carcinoma using different markers and comparison with clinicopathologic prognostic factors. Tumour Biol. 2011;32:527–534. doi: 10.1007/s13277-010-0147-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Saad RS, Liu YL, Nathan G, Celebrezze J, Medich D, Silverman JF. Endoglin (CD105) and vascular endothelial growth factor as prognostic markers in colorectal cancer. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:197–203. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Romani AA, Borghetti AF, Del Rio P, Sianesi M, Soliani P. The risk of developing metastatic disease in colorectal cancer is related to CD105-positive vessel count. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93:446–455. doi: 10.1002/jso.20456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Akagi K, Ikeda Y, Sumiyoshi Y, Kimura Y, Kinoshita J, Miyazaki M, et al. Estimation of angiogenesis with anti-CD105 immunostaining in the process of colorectal cancer development. Surgery. 2002;131(1 Suppl):S109–S113. doi: 10.1067/msy.2002.119361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bal O, Ekinci AS, Dogan M, Atay C, Demirci A, Oksuzoglu B, et al. The prognostic and predictive significance of plasma type 1 plasminogen activator inhibitor and endoglin in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy. J Cancer Res Ther. 2019;15:48–53. doi: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1253_16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Dassoulas K, Gazouli M, Theodoropoulos G, Christoni Z, Rizos S, Zisi-Serbetzoglou A, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor and endoglin expression in colorectal cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136:703–708. doi: 10.1007/s00432-009-0709-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gomceli I, Tez M, Bostanci EB, Turhan N, Kemik AS, Akoglu M. Preoperative serum levels of soluble endoglin for prediction of recurrence in stage III colorectal cancer patients. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) 2012;55:74–77. doi: 10.14712/18059694.2015.58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hawinkels LJ, Kuiper P, Wiercinska E, Verspaget HW, Liu Z, Pardali E, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase-14 (MT1-MMP)-mediated endoglin shedding inhibits tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2010;70:4141–4150. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-4466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Li C, Gardy R, Seon BK, Duff SE, Abdalla S, Renehan A, et al. Both high intratumoral microvessel density determined using CD105 antibody and elevated plasma levels of CD105 in colorectal cancer patients correlate with poor prognosis. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:1424–1431. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mitselou A, Galani V, Skoufi U, Arvanitis DL, Lampri E, Ioachim E. Syndecan-1, Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Markers (E-cadherin/β-catenin) and Neoangiogenesis-related Proteins (PCAM-1 and Endoglin) in Colorectal Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:2271–2280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Martins SF, Reis RM, Rodrigues AM, Baltazar F, Filho AL. Role of endoglin and VEGF family expression in colorectal cancer prognosis and anti-angiogenic therapies. World J Clin Oncol. 2011;2:272–280. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v2.i6.272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Marioni G, Ottaviano G, Lionello M, Fasanaro E, Staffieri C, Giacomelli L, et al. A panel of biomarkers for predicting response to postoperative RT for laryngeal cancer? Am J Otolaryngol. 2014;35:771–778. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2014.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Vo MN, Evans M, Leitzel K, Ali SM, Wilson M, Demers L, et al. Elevated plasma endoglin (CD105) predicts decreased response and survival in a metastatic breast cancer trial of hormone therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119:767–771. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0261-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Beresford MJ, Harris AL, Ah-See M, Daley F, Padhani AR, Makris A. The relationship of the neo-angiogenic marker, endoglin, with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:1683–1688. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Uronis HE, Jia J, Bendell JC, Howard L, Ready NA, Lee PH, et al. A Phase I/biomarker study of bevacizumab in combination with CNTO 95 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;75:343–352. doi: 10.1007/s00280-014-2647-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Nogués A, Gallardo-Vara E, Zafra MP, Mate P, Marijuan JL, Alonso A, et al. Endoglin (CD105) and VEGF as potential angiogenic and dissemination markers for colorectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18:99. doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-01871-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Nassiri F, Cusimano MD, Scheithauer BW, Rotondo F, Fazio A, Yousef GM, et al. Endoglin (CD105): a review of its role in angiogenesis and tumor diagnosis, progression and therapy. Anticancer Res. 2011;31:2283–2290. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Mahar AL, Compton C, Halabi S, Hess KR, Weiser MR, Groome PA. Personalizing prognosis in colorectal cancer: A systematic review of the quality and nature of clinical prognostic tools for survival outcomes. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116:969–982. doi: 10.1002/jso.24774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Alves Martins BA, de Bulhões GF, Cavalcanti IN, Martins MM, de Oliveira PG, Martins AMA. Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer: The Role of Translational Proteomics Research. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1284. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Koncina E, Haan S, Rauh S, Letellier E. Prognostic and Predictive Molecular Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer: Updates and Challenges. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:319. doi: 10.3390/cancers12020319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Argilés G, Tabernero J, Labianca R, Hochhauser D, Salazar R, Iveson T, et al. Localised colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1291–1305. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.De Falco V, Napolitano S, Roselló S, Huerta M, Cervantes A, Ciardiello F, et al. How we treat metastatic colorectal cancer. ESMO Open. 2020;4(Suppl 2):e000813. doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Table SI.
Quality assessment results for included case-control studies.
| Study ID | 4- Gomceli 2012 [26] |
|---|---|
| Selection (max. 4 *) | |
| 1) Is the case definition adequate? | * |
| 2) Representativeness of the cases | * |
| 3) Selection of controls | * |
| 4) Definition of controls | * |
| Comparability (max. 2*) | |
| 1) Comparability of cases and controls based on design or analysis | ** |
| Exposure (max. 4*) | |
| 1) Ascertainment of exposure | * |
| 2) Similar method of ascertainment for cases and controls | * |
| 3) Nonresponse rate | |
| Total | 8 |
Table SII.
Quality assessment results for included retrospective cohort studies.
| Study ID | 1-Akagi 2002 [23] | 2- Bal 2020 [24] | 3- Dassoula 2009 [25] | 5- Hawinkels 2010 [27] | 6- Li 2003 [28] | 7- Mitselou 2016 [29] | 8- Mohamed 2017 [16] | 9- Moreira 2011 [20] | 10- Redondo 2019 [4] | 11- Romani 2006 [22] | 12- Saad 2003 [21] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection (max. 4*) | |||||||||||
| Representativeness of exposed cohort | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Selection of nonexposed cohort | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Ascertainment of exposure | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Demonstrating that outcome of interest was not present at initiation of study | |||||||||||
| Comparability (max. 2*) | |||||||||||
| Comparability of cohorts based on design or analysis | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||
| Outcome (max. 5*) | |||||||||||
| Assessment of outcome | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||||
| Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||
| Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Total | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 |