Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of the predicting value of ER-α, ER-β, PR-A, and PR-B in EC patients

From: Prognostic role of hormone receptors in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  

OS

CSS

PFS

ER-α

HR

0.73 (0.52–1.03)

0.54 (0.30–0.98)

0.84 (0.57–1.24)

Heterogeneity, P value

0.013

0.001

0.013

Model

Fixed

Random

Fixed

Bias, P value

0.379

0.968

0.975

N

1568

1332

1119

Study

7

5

6

HR

0.90 (0.45–1.80)

0.84 (0.49–1.44)

ER-β

Heterogeneity, P value

0.847

0.805

Model

Fixed

Fixed

Bias, P value

0.771

0.287

N

925

925

Study

4

4

HR

1.00 (0.99–1.00)

0.78 (0.18–3.44)

PR-A

Heterogeneity, P value

0.066

0.001

Model

Fixed

Fixed

Bias, P value

0.026

0.652

N

1038

696

Study

5

3

HR

0.67 (0.49–0.90)

0.60 (0.43–0.82)

PR-B

Heterogeneity, P value

0.841

0.656

Model

Random

Random

Bias, P value

0.748

0.32

N

696

696

Study

3

3

  1. A test of heterogeneity of combined HRs was conducted using Cochran Q test and Higgins I-squared statistic. A random-effect model (Der Simonian and Laird method) was used if heterogeneity was observed (P < 0.05), whereas the fixed-effect model was applied in the absence of between-study heterogeneity (P < 0.05). Publication bias was evaluated using the funnel plot with the Egger bias indicator test
  2. EC endometrial cancer, ER-α estrogen receptor-alpha, ER-β estrogen receptor-beta, PR-A progesterone receptor-A, PR-B progesterone receptor-B, HR hazards ratio, OS overall survival, CSS cancer-specific survival, DSS disease-specific survival, PFS progression-free survival, DFS disease-free survival, RFS relapse-free survival