Microvessel density and VEGF expression are prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. Meta-analysis of the literature

We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies relating intratumoural microvessel density (MVD) (45 studies) or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression (27 studies), both reflecting angiogenesis, to relapse free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in colorectal cancer (CRC). For each study, MVD impact was measured by risk ratio between the two survival distributions with median MVD as cutoff. Eleven studies did not mention survival data or fit inclusion criteria, six were multiple publications of same series, leaving 32 independent studies for MVD (3496 patients) and 18 for VEGF (2050 patients). Microvessel density was assessed by immunohistochemistry, using antibodies against factor VIII (16 studies), CD31 (10 studies) or CD34 (seven studies). Vascular endothelial growth factor expression was mostly assessed by immunohistochemistry. Statistics were performed for MVD in 22 studies (the others lacking survival statistics) including nine studies (n=957) for RFS and 18 for OS (n=2383) and for VEGF in 17 studies, including nine studies for RFS (n=1064) and 10 for OS (n=1301). High MVD significantly predicted poor RFS (RR=2.32 95% CI: 1.39–3.90; P<0.001) and OS (RR=1.44; 95% CI: 1.08–1.92; P=0.01). Using CD31 or CD34, MVD was inversely related to survival, whereas it was not using factor VIII. Vascular endothelial growth factor expression significantly predicted poor RFS (RR=2.84; 95% CI: 1.95–4.16) and OS (RR=1.65; 95% CI: 1.27–2.14). To strengthen our findings, future prospective studies should explore the relation between MVD or VEGF expression and survival or response to therapy (e.g. antiangiogenic therapy). Assessment of these angiogenic markers should be better standardised in future studies

Hyaluronan for knee osteoarthritis: an updated meta-analysis of trials with low risk of bias

International audienceBackground The effectiveness of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) injection for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is debated.Objectives To evaluate the effect of IAHA for patients with KOA by analysing data from trials of IAHA versus placebo with low risk of bias, to provide the highest level of evidence.Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a low risk of bias (adequate randomisation and concealment and double-blind design) that investigated IAHA versus placebo (saline solution) injection were eligible. The primary efficacy measure was pain intensity and secondary outcome function at 3 months. The treatment effect was summarised with the standardised mean difference (SMD) calculated from differences in means of pain and function measures between treatment and control groups at 3 months. Trials were pooled by a random-effects model with DerSimonian and Laird weights. Statistical heterogeneity was explored by a visual exploration of forest plots and the I2 statistic.Results A total of eight RCTs (2 199 randomised patients) met our inclusion criteria. IAHA significantly reduced the pain intensity (SMD=−0.21, 95% CI (95% CI) −0.32 to −0.10) and improved function (SMD=−0.12, 95% CI −0.22 to −0.02). Trials showed no heterogeneity.Conclusions This meta-analysis of high-quality trials of IAHA versus placebo shows that IAHA provides a moderate but real benefit for patients with KOA