Overexpression of Cyclooxygenase-2 predicts poor survival of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A meta-analysis.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.15414/v1

Abstract

Background The prognostic significance of cyclooxygenase-2 ( Cox-2 ) expression has been implicated in various cancers such as carcinomas of the breast, head and neck squamous cell, oral squamous cell, and nasopharyngeal. Despite meta-analysis studies of Cox-2 expression in Head and Neck cancer, similar investigation that focus on nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remains unexplored. Thus far, expression studies of Cox-2 in NPC have not yield conclusive findings due to conflicting results. This study, therefore, is the first to evaluate Cox-2 expression with the survival outcome and treatment response of NPC patients via a systematic meta-analysis approach.Methods Meta-analysis was done in compliance with the standard protocol of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Checklist. Potential studies were obtained from PubMed, Science Direct and Scopus. Fundamental and primary clinical characteristics of patients and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of overall survival (OS) data were then collected and tabulated. Analysis of relationship between Cox-2 expression and survival outcome in NPC patients were explained with the aid of forest plot charts. Odd ratio (OR) evaluation to determine the relationship between Cox-2 expression and treatment response was via MedCalc (version 18.11) software, with results displayed in forest plots.Results Seven eligible studies containing 495 NPC patients were finally used in the meta-analysis. The pooled HRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS is 2.53 [2.13, 3.27], indicating that overexpression of Cox-2 corresponds to poor survival. In the case of treatment response, the pooled OR is 0.98 [0.27-3.49], revealing that the expression pattern of Cox-2 did not relate to the outcome of treatment.Conclusions Overexpression of Cox-2 predicts worse survival outcome for NPC patients, but not treatment response. Hence, the prognostic value of Cox-2 in NPC is only relevant when survival probability of patients is considered.

Background

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a form of malignancy at the tissue of the upper section of pharynx behind the nose [1] – the nasopharynx region. Globally, it accounts for 65,000 deaths yearly but also has a regionally varied incidence rate [2]. In endemic regions such as Southern China, Southeast Asia and the Middle East, there are over 20 cases per 100,000 people albeit rare in North America and Europe [3]. Based on World Health Organization (WHO) classification, NPC is histologically categorized as three subtypes, namely Type I: keratinizing differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, Type II (or 2a): non-keratinizing differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, and Type III (or 2b): non-differentiated undifferentiated basaloid squamous cell carcinoma [4]. The more chemo-sensitive type (Type III/2b) is predominant among Asian cases, whereas Types I and II/2a are mostly found in Western countries [5].

Risk factors for NPC include genetic, viral (Epstein–Barr Virus, EBV) infection, environment, lifestyle (smoking), and consumption of certain preserved food [6]. Early stages of malignancy usually involve invasion of NPC cells to surrounding tissue and cervical lymph nodes [7, 8]. Despite the radio-sensitivity of NPC tumors, patients with advanced stages show poor survival rate [9 – 12]. Improved therapeutic techniques such as concurrent chemotherapy with or without neo-adjuvant/adjuvant, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and high resolution magnetic resonance image (MRI) monitoring have been the standard treatment protocol for locally advanced NPC [13 - 15]. Nevertheless, relapse and metastasis still occur in approximately 20-50% of patients [16].

Studies have shown that NPC patients in the same classification present with different prognosis [17, 18]. This suggests that ethnicity consideration [19] and bio-molecular factors associated with survival outcome [20] may be necessary to accurately distinguish NPC patients for individualized and tailored treatment that is more effective. As such, identifying prognostic factors, particular molecular/genetic factors, that correspond closely to the actual clinical outcomes is necessary for improvement of therapies that yield better treatment outcome.

One such candidate biomarker of potential prognostic significance to NPC is the Cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) gene.  Its expression has clinical and prognostic significance in cancers of the head and neck [21]. More specifically in NPC, its involvement in carcinogenesis is most probably via participation in the formation of inflammatory microenvironment that has consequence on tumorigenesis and malignancy [22]. Cox-2 overexpression is also associated with metastasis to lymph node in NPC patients [23]. Its most probably mediates metastasis in NPC by promoting interactions between cancer and myeloid-derived suppressor cells [24].

Cox-2, one of the two isoforms of Cox gene and a key enzyme in the conversion of arachidonic acid to prostaglandins, is known to be poorly expressed (if not detectable at all) in most normal tissues but is rapidly induced by pro-inflammatory cytokines, growth factors, carcinogens and tumor promoters [25 - 28]. Its overexpression in various cancers has been linked to angiogenesis, invasion, and apoptotic resistance - suggesting its involvement in inflammation-induced tumorigenesis, and its influence on the outcome and survival of cancer cells [24, 26, 29 - 33]. Interestingly, the functional abrogation of Cox-2 via Cox inhibitor reverses cancer progression [34 - 37]. Actions of Cox inhibitor and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have effects on the reduced incidence and progression of tumors in animal models [38].

To date, a comprehensive review analysis of Cox-2 as per its prognostic value for NPC is lacking. Inferences from existing literature linking its expression to NPC tissues are compounded by the fact that the experimental studies differ in methodology, and each of them was biased by relatively small sample size. As a result, findings have not been consistent. Herein, we report a systematic review and meta-analysis study to established the relationship between Cox-2 expression and survival outcome and treatment response in NPC patients.

Methods

Literature Search

Exhaustive literature search was done via electronic and manual strategies. In the former, searches were conducted on PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), Science Direct (https://www.sciencedirect.com/) and Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/). For the latter, manual searches were done using the reference lists of relevant articles. The keywords used to retrieve related articles and abstracts were Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC) and Cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2). The currency of collected literature data was as at March 7, 2019.

 

Selection Criteria

Titles and abstracts of all the articles retrieved from literature search strategy were scrutinized for relevancy based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria comprised studies (1) containing NPC patients, (2) evaluating the expression of Cox-2, (3) with data related to hazard ratio (HR) and/or odd ratio (OR) at 95% confidence interval (CI), (4) reported in English, and (5) done in human. Exclusion criteria consisted of studies (1) from review articles or letters, (2) written in Chinese, (3) with duplicated data, (4) containing insufficient information to calculate the log hazard ratio (logHR), standard error of logHR (SE) and/or odd ratio (OR) for analysis, (5) from meta-analysis articles, and (6) of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) related reports. Following selection, full text articles of potential eligible studies were downloaded to procure the required data. To avoid duplication, only the newest article with biggest samples size was included when more than a trial was done within the same patient population.

 

Data retrieval

Data extracted from each eligible studies included first author’s last name, publication year, region of publication, ethnicity, number of female patients, number of patients with high/low Cox-2 expression, Cox-2 expression assay (method and cut-off level), clinic-pathological data (number of patients with different tumor stages), therapy regimen used, and survival data (HR at 95% CI for OS and OR).

 

Statistical Analysis

Primary results of this meta-analysis were overall survival (OS) rate, which was expressed as hazard ratio (HR) at 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The OS is a direct estimate of clinical benefit to a patient, and is defined as the time from random assignment to death [39]. LogHR and SE data available in any eligible studies were used directly for the purpose of our meta-analysis. In instances where the logHR and SE were not shown directly, methods developed by Parmar et al. [40] was used to obtain the relative data. Relevant methods provided in the same studies were also used to determine the pooled HR, CI and weight. Basically, HR of more than one (HR > 1), reflects a poor prognosis in Cox-2 over-expression. Significance of the outcome was proven at p value <0.05. Significant heterogeneity exists in pooled HRs when p < 0.10 or I2 > 50%. Results for each individual study and the pooled results for included eligible studies were displayed as forest plot. The OR was to determine the impact of Cox-2 expression on treatment response. MedCalc (version 18.11) software was used to determine the OR at 95% CI. Forest plot of OR for included studies was also graphed. The same software was also used to determine the publication bias, of which was presented by I2 and p-value. Significant heterogeneity was taken for pooled ORs of p < 0.10 or I2 > 50%, and graphically represented using a funnel plot. Publication bias is taken for p > 0.10, and can be visually evaluated by the asymmetry of the funnel plot.

Results

Eligible Studies

In the initial search, 46, 24 and 37 potential studies were obtained from Scopus, Science Direct and PubMed respectively, yielding a total of 107 studies (Figure 1). From these, 53 studies were excluded after their titles and abstracts were reviewed and deemed irrelevant. Full texts of the remaining 54 potentially relevant studies were downloaded and reviewed in detail. Subsequently, another 36 studies were excluded for the reason that nine were written in Chinese and 27 were duplicates. Eleven of the remaining 18 articles have incomplete data for meta-analysis, leaving a final of 7 eligible studies (Figure 1).

 

The publication years for these 7 eligible studies are between 2009 and 2018, and include a total of 495 patients (range of 38 to 148 per study). Retrieved clinical information from these patients is shown in Table 1. All the studies involved cases in Asia, and hence only among Asian patients. Except for one study, female patients represent a minority group among the total number of patients admitted. In 6 of the studies, a majority of the patients presents with advanced stages of cancer (Stage III & IV) upon diagnosis. Albeit a variety of chemotherapy strategies, the dominant treatment method reported in 6 of the studies is radiotherapy. With the exception of one study, the detection method for Cox-2 expression was Immunohistochemistry assay. Four of the studies have more patients in the high expression group. All 7 articles provided data (OS) for survival analysis, whereas only two of the 7 articles have data (OR) for analysis of treatment response.

 

Correlation between Cox-2 expression and survival outcome

Correlation of NPC patients’ survival outcome with Cox-2 expression was determined by the hazard ratio (HR) value of OS. The pooled HR (95% CI) of OS from the 7 studies is 2.63 [2.13, 3.27], (I2 = 93%, P < 0.001) in a random model (Figure 2). Patient group with higher Cox-2 expression shows higher hazard of death compared to the control groups as the HR obtained was greater than one. The HR value of 2.63 implies that at any time during the follow-up, patient group with Cox-2 over-expression have a 163% higher risk of death. OS was statistically significant because the 95% CI did not include 1. However, heterogeneity of our result is significant, suggesting that our findings may be improved further by increasing sample size.

 

Correlation between Cox-2 expression and treatment response

Two of the 7 studies that has sufficient data on treatment response were analysis to determine correlation between Cox-2 expression and treatment response in NPC patients. Odd ratio (OR) results were evaluated on this case. The pooled OR (at 95% CI) was 0.98 [0.27, 3.49], (I2 = 0%, P = 0.99) in a random model (Figure 3). Since the OR is less than 1, the treatment response among patients with high Cox-2 expression was better than the control group. Nonetheless, this result is not statistically significant because the 95% CI included 1. 

 

Assessment of publication biasness

Based on the funnel plot (OR vs standard error, Figure 4) no publication bias is evident. Hence, our result is significant, and closely relevant to true scenario.

Discussion

The main finding of our meta-analysis is the fact that over-expression of Cox-2 is associated with poor prognosis of NPC patients with respect to survival outcome. In fact, patients with high Cox-2 level are 2.63 times more likely to die post-treatment relative to those in the low expression group. This observation of correlation between poor prognosis and up-regulation of Cox-2 has also been reported in other previous studies of different cancers. Its over-expression has been linked to angiogenesis and lymph node metastasis in breast carcinoma [41], tumor progression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) [42], and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) [43]. There has only been one other study that contradicts this observation. Loong et al. [44] reported that weak or low (rather than high) Cox-2 expression was associated with worse survival rate in NPC. Nevertheless, the nature of our analysis that involved pooled data from multiple studies on NPC validates our conclusion, and affirms the reliability of Cox-2 as a prognostic marker for NPC.

In the event of NPC carcinogenesis, up-regulation of Cox-2 most probably play essential role(s) in angiogenesis, invasion, metastasis and inhibition of apoptosis – demanding its persistence presence in a wide range of pre-neoplastic and malignant conditions [34-38]. Its induction by inflammatory cytokines, tumor promoters, and growth factors in cancer cells/tissues [45] helps to sustain its level in cancer progression where it acts in concert with VEGF and EGRF, that are similarly activated [46, 47]. Incidentally, the tumorigenic effects of Cox-2 are inhibited by selected Cox-2 inhibitors [24, 41, 48]. One of such inhibitors is Celecoxib which demonstrated anti-proliferative, anti-invasive and anti-angiogenic effects on an NPC cell line in a dose-dependent manner [49]. Potentially, Celecoxib could be a use in combination with current chemo- and radiotherapy strategies in the treatment of NPC patients – a prospect that warrants clinical trial studies. 

For treatment response, our analysis reveals that patients with high Cox-2 expression responded better compared to low expression or control group. However, our result is statistically insignificant, hence inconclusive. A contributing factor to this problem could be the very limited number of studies (only two) available for meta-analysis. It remains to be explored whether chemo- and/or radiotherapy responsiveness among NPC patients with high Cox-2 level is a prevalent observation. More clinical and experimental studies on this matter will be needed to resolve this question.

Quintessentially, our study reveals the correlation of low survival rate among NPC patients with high Cox-2 expression. This is the first study that scientifically established the relevance of Cox-2 as a prognostic biomarker for NPC as far as post-treatment survival outcome is concerned. Hence, development of a standard protocol for the evaluation of Cox-2 expression in NPC patients following chemo- and radiotherapy should now have direct applicability in the management and treatment nasopharyngeal cancer.

 

Conclusions

Survival rate of NPC patients correlates negatively with expression level of Cox-2. However, there is no significant correlation between Cox-2 expression and treatment outcome. Therefore, Cox-2 can only be a prognostic biomarker for NPC in the assessment of survival probability.

Abbreviations

5-FU: 5-fluorouracil

ASR: age-adjusted rate

CCRT: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy

CIs: confidence intervals

CRT: chemoradiotherapy

Cox-2: cyclooxygenase-2

EBV: Epstein–Barr virus

HRs: hazard ratios

HNC: Head and Neck cancer

HNSCC: head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

IC: induction chemotherapy

ICRT: induction chemoradiotherapy

IHC: Immunohistochemistry

IMRT: intensity-modulated radiation therapy

ISH: RNA-in situ hybridization

I2: I-squared

MRI: magnetic resonance imaging

NPC: Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

NSAIDs: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

NR: not related

ORs: odd ratios

OSCC: oral squamous cell carcinoma

OS: overall survival

PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

RT: radiotherapy

SE: standard error

WHO: World Health Organization

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

 

Consent for publication

Not applicable

 

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used (including data generated) and/or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

 

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

 

Funding

This study is funded by the Malaysian Ministry of Education via the Trans-disciplinary Research Grant Scheme (Grant No: F07/TRGS/1520/2016).

 

Authors' contributions

EUHS conceived of and supervised the study. CCS, EUHS and YLC designed the study. CCS performed the data collection and analysis. CCS and EUHS interpreted the results. Both CCS and EUHS contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

 

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

References

  1. He HL, Lee YE, Liang PI, Lee SW, Chen TJ, Chan TC, et al. Overexpression of JAK2: a predictor of unfavorable prognosis for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Futur Oncol [Internet]. 2016;12(16):1887–96. Available from: doi: 10.2217/fon-2016-0025
  2. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer [Internet]. 2010;127(12):2893–917. Available from: doi: 10.1002/ijc.25516.
  3. Chang ET, Adami HO. The enigmatic epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev [Internet]. 2006;15(10):1765–77. Available from: doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.
  4. Barnes L, Eveson J, Reichart P, Sidransky D. World Health Organization classification of tumors: Pathology and Genetics of head and neck tumors. Lyon: IARC Press. 2005.
  5. Fandi A, Altun M, Azli N, Armand JP, Cvitkovic E. Nasopharyngeal cancer: epidemiology, staging, and treatment. Semin Oncol. 1994;21(3):382-97.
  6. Chan ATC. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ann Oncol [Internet]. 2010;21(7):vii308-vii312. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq277
  7. Cho WC. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Molecular biomarker discovery and progress. Mol Cancer [Internet]. 2007;6:1–9. Available from: doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-6-1
  8. Chou J, Lin YC, Kim J, You L, Xu ZD, He B, et al. Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma - Review of The Molecular Mechanism of Tumorigenesis. Head Neck. 2008;30(7):946–63.
  9. Rusthoven CG, Lanning RM, Jones BL, Amini A, Koshy M, Sher DJ, et al. Metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Patterns of care and survival for patients receiving chemotherapy with and without local radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol [Internet]. 2017;124(1):139–46. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.03.019
  10. Yeh SA, Tang Y, Lui CC, Huang YJ, Huang EY. Treatment outcomes and late complications of 849 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with radiotherapy alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62(3):672–9.
  11. Geara FB, Sanguineti G, Tucker SL, Garden AS, Ang KK, Morrison WH, et al. Carcinoma of the nasopharynx treated by radiotherapy alone: Determinants of distant metastasis and survival. Radiother Oncol. 1997;43(1):53–61.
  12. Teo P, Yu P, Lee WY, Leung SF, Kwan WH, Yu KH, et al. Significant prognosticators after primary radiotherapy in 903 nondisseminated nasopharyngeal carcinoma evaluated by computer tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys [Internet]. 1996;36(2):291–304. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00323-9%0A
  13. Prawira A, Oosting SF, Chen TW, Delos Santos KA, Saluja R, Wang L, et al. Systemic therapies for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review. Br J Cancer [Internet]. 2017;117(12):1743–52. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.357
  14. Wu F, Wang RS, Lu HM, Wei B, Feng GS, Li GS, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Treatment outcomes of a prospective multicentric clinical study. Radiother Oncol [Internet]. 2014;112(1):106–11. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.05.005
  15. Fendri A, Khabir A, Mnejja W, Sellami-Boudawara T, Daoud J, Frikha M, et al. PIK3CA amplification is predictive of poor prognosis in Tunisian patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Sci. 2009;100(11):2034–9.
  16. Hughes PJ, Scott PMJ, Kew J, Cheung DMC, Leung SF, Ahuja AT, et al. Dysphagia in treated nasopharyngeal cancer. Head Neck. 2000;22(4):393–7.
  17. Han L, Lin SJ, Pan JJ, Chen CB, Zhang Y, Zhang XC, et al. Prognostic factors of 305 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. China J Cancer. 2010;29(2):145–50.
  18. Chua DT, Nicholls JM, Sham JS, Au GK. Prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor expression in patients with advanced stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with induction chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(1):11–20.
  19. Su CK, Wang CC. Prognostic value of Chinese race in nasopharyngeal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys [Internet]. 2002;54(3):752–8. Available from: doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02969-3
  20. Shi W, Pataki I, Macmillan C, Pintilie M, Payne D, O’Sullivan B, et al. Molecular Pathology Parameters in Human Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;94(7):1997–2006.
  21. Yang B, Jia L, Guo QJ, Ren H, Hu YP, Xie T. Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of cyclooxygenase-2 expression in head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis. Oncotarget [Internet]. 2016;7(30):47265–77. Available from: doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10059
  22. Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M. Immunity, Inflammation, and Cancer. Cell [Internet]. 2010;140(6):883–99. Available from: doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.025
  23. Fendri A, Khabir A, Hadhri-Guiga B, Sellami-Boudawara T, Ghorbel A, Daoud J, et al. Overexpression of COX-2 and LMP1 are correlated with lymph node in Tunisian NPC patients. Oral Oncol. 2007;44(7):710–5.
  24. Li ZL, Ye SB, OuYang LY, Zhang H, Zhang XS, Li J, et al. COX-2 promotes metastasis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma by mediating interactions between cancer cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Oncoimmunology. 2015;4(11):e1044712.
  25. Dannenberg AJ, Altorki NK, Boyle JO, Dang C, Howe LR, Weksler BB, et al. Cyclo-oxygenase 2: A pharmacological target for the prevention of cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2001;2(9):544–51.
  26. Greenhough A, Smartt HJ, Moore AE, Roberts HR, Williams AC, Paraskeva C, et al. The COX-2/PGE2 pathway: Key roles in the hallmarks of cancer and adaptation to the tumour microenvironment. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30(3):377–86.
  27. Brown JR, DuBois RN. COX-2: A Molecular Target for Colorectal Cancer Prevention. J Clin Oncol [Internet]. 2005;23(12):2840–55. Available from: http://www.jco.org/cgi/doi/10.1200/JCO.2005.09.051
  28. Simonsson M, Björner S, Markkula A, Nodin B, Jirström K, Rose C, et al. The prognostic impact of COX-2 expression in breast cancer depends on oral contraceptive history, preoperative NSAID use, and tumor size. Int J Cancer. 2017;140(1):163–75.
  29. Gupta GP, Nguyen DX, Chiang AC, Bos PD, Kim JY, Nadal C, et al. Mediators of vascular remodelling co-opted for sequential steps in lung metastasis. Nature. 2007;446(7137):765–70.
  30. Bakhle YS. Cox-2 and cancer: A new approach to an old problem. Br J Pharmacol. 2001;134(6):1137–50.
  31. Xu KM, Wang LF, Shu HG. COX-2 overexpression increases malignant potential of human glioma cells through Id1. Oncotarget [Internet]. 2014;5(5):1241–52. Available from: doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.1370
  32. Huang ML, Chen Q, Xiao JP, Liu CH, Zhao XM. Prognostic significance of cyclooxygenase-2 in cervical cancer : A meta-analysis. Int J Cancer [Internet]. 2013;132(2):363– Available from: doi: 10.1002/ijc.27686
  33. Peng L, Zhou Y, Wang YN, Mou HB, Zhao Q. Prognostic Significance of COX-2 Immunohistochemical Expression in Colorectal Cancer : A Meta-Analysis of the Literature. PLoS One [Internet]. 2013;8(3):1– Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058891
  34. Vosooghi M, Amini M. The discovery and development of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors as potential anticancer therapies. Expert Opin Drug Discov [Internet]. 2014;9(3):255–67. Available from: doi: 10.1517/17460441.2014.883377
  35. Schellhorn M, Haustein M, Frank M, Linnebacher M, Hinz B. Celecoxib increases lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine- activated killer cells via upregulation of ICAM-1. Oncotarget [Internet]. 2005;6(36):39342–56. Available from: doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.5745.
  36. Pan Y, Jiang Y, Tan L, Ravoori MK, Gagea M, Kundra V, et al. Deletion of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibits K-ras – induced lung carcinogenesis. Oncotarget [Internet]. 2015;6(36):38816–26. Available from: doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.5558.
  37. Ben-Batalla I, Cubas-cordova M, Udonta F, Waizenegger JS, Janning M, Sawall S, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 blockade can improve efficacy of VEGF- targeting drugs. Oncotarget [Internet]. 2015;6(8):6341–58. Available from: doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.3437
  38. Pan J, Kong L, Lin S, Chen G, Chen Q, Lu JJ. The clinical significance of coexpression of cyclooxygenases-2, vascular endothelial growth factors, and epidermal growth factor receptor in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2008;118(11):1970–5.
  39. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug. Guidance for Industry: Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Drugs and Biologics [Internet]. Bethesda, United State; 2011. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM259421.pdf
  40. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med [Internet]. 1998;17(24):2815–34. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9921604
  41. Costa C, Soares R, Reis-Filho JS, Leitao D, Amendoeira I, Schmitt FC. Cyclo-oxygenase 2 expression is associated with angiogenesis and lymph node metastasis in human breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55(6):429–34.
  42. Saba NF, Choi M, Muller S, Shin HJC, Tighiouart M, Papadimitrakopoulou VA, et al. Role of Cyclooxygenase-2 in Tumor Progression and Survival of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Cancer Prev Res. 2009;2(9):823–9.
  43. Kim KY, Li SJ, Cha JD, Zhang XL, Cha IH. Significance of molecular markers in survival prediction of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2012;34(7):929–36.
  44. Loong SL, Hwang JS, Li HH, Wee JT, Yap SP, Chua ML, et al. Weak expression of cyclooxygenase-2 is associated with poorer outcome in endemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: analysis of data from randomized trial between radiation alone versus concurrent chemo-radiation (SQNP-01). Radiat Oncol [Internet]. 2009;4(23):1–7. Available from: doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-4-23
  45. Turini ME, Dubois RN. Cyclooxygenase-2: a therapeutic target. Annu Rev Med [Internet]. 2002;53:35–57. Available from: doi: 10.1146/annurev.med.53.082901.103952
  46. Williams CS, Tsujii M, Reese J, Dey SK, DuBois RN. Host cyclooxygenase-2 modulates carcinoma growth. J Clin Invest. 2000;105(11):1589–94.
  47. Soo R, Putti T, Tao Q, Goh BC, Lee KH, Kwok-Seng L, et al. Overexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 in nasopharyngeal carcinoma and association with epidermal growth factor receptor expression. Arch Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2005;131(2):147–52.
  48. Ristimäki A, Sivula A, Lundin J, Lundin M, Salminen T, Haglund C, et al. Prognostic significance of elevated cyclooxygenase-2 expression in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2002;62(3):632–5.
  49. Chen JY, Ran YG, Hong CQ, Chen ZJ, You YJ. Anti-cancer effects of celecoxib on nasopharyngeal carcinoma HNE-1 cells expressing COX-2 Cytotechnology. 2010;62(5):431–8.

Tables

Table 1: Patient characteristics and clinical information from the 7 relevant studies.

Author

Year

Region

Ethnicity

Female

 N (%)

High/Low Cox-2

N (%)

Cox-2 detection method

Threshold/

Cut-off value type

Patients cancer stages

Chemotherapy regimen

Survival outcome

Li YJ

2018

China

Asian

28 (24.3)

53/62

(46.1/53.9)

ISH

NR

I & II (31), III & IV (84)

RT, CCRT (platinum)

OS

Xu L

2013

China

Asian

93 (62.8)

107/41

(72.3/27.7)

IHC

Score

I & II (95), III & IV (53)

NR

OS

Pan J

2012

China

Asian

27 (24.3)

59/52 (53.2/46.8)

IHC

NR

I & II (30), III & IV (81)

RT, combined CRT (S-FU)

OS (10 Yrs)

Kim TJ

2011

Korea

Asian

8 (21)

31/7 (82/18)

IHC

NR

I & II (6), III & IV (32)

IC, RT, CCRT

OS (5 Yrs)

Huang TL

2010

Taiwan

Asian

61 (36)

NR

IHC

H-score

I & II (71), III & IV (99)

RT

OS (5 Yrs)

Kim TJ

2010

Korea

Asian

19 (27.5)

43/26 (62.3/37.7)

IHC

Score

I & II (17), III & IV (52)

RT, ICRT, CCRT

OS

Loong SL

2009

Singapore

Asian

9 (15.5)

24/34

(41.4/58.6)

IHC

Score

I & II (0), III & IV (58)

RT, CRT

OS

Note: ISH = RNA-in situ hybridization, IHC = Immunohistochemistry, RT = radiotherapy, CCRT = concurrent chemoradiotherapy, IC = induction chemotherapy, ICRT = induction chemoradiotherapy, CRT = chemoradiotherapy, 5-FU = 5-fluorouracil, NR = not related