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