Open Access

The association between CDH1 promoter methylation and patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic meta-analysis

Journal of Ovarian Research20169:23

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-016-0231-1

Received: 21 February 2016

Accepted: 23 March 2016

Published: 11 April 2016

Abstract

Background

The down-regulation of E-cadherin gene (CDH1) expression has been regarded as an important event in cancer invasion and metastasis. However, the association between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer remains unclear. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential role of CDH1 promoter methylation in ovarian cancer.

Methods

Relevant articles were identified by searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang databases. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated to assess the strength of association.

Results

Nine studies were performed using the fixed-effects model in this study, including 485 cancer tissues and 255 nonmalignant tissues. The findings showed that CDH1 promoter methylation had an increased risk of ovarian cancer in cancer tissues (OR = 8.71, P < 0.001) in comparison with nonmalignant tissues. Subgroup analysis of the ethnicity showed that the OR value of CDH1 methylation in Asian population subgroup (OR = 13.20, P < 0.001) was higher than that in Caucasian population subgroup (OR = 3.84, P = 0.005). No significant association was found between ovarian cancer and low malignant potential (LMP) tumor (P = 0.096) among 2 studies, and between CDH1 promoter methylation and tumor stage and tumor histology (all P > 0.05). There was not any evidence of publication bias by Egger’s test (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions

CDH1 promoter methylation can be a potential biomarker in ovarian cancer risk prediction, especially Asians can be more susceptible to CDH1 methylation. However, more studies are still done in the future.

Keywords

CDH1 promoter Methylation Ovarian cancer LMP

Background

Ovarian cancer, the most lethal tumor in gynecologic cancers, is the fifth most cause of cancer-related deaths among women. According to cancer statistics, approximately 21,290 women will be diagnosed and 14,180 will die due to ovarian cancer in the United States in 2015 [1]. Among ovarian cancer, serous ovarian carcinoma is the most common histotype and only less than 20 % of ovarian cancer can be detected early due to the lack of effective early detection and accurate diagnosis methods [2]. More than 80 % of ovarian cancer patients at advanced stages relapse [3]. While the overall 5-year survival rate is only 31 % [4].

Epigenetic alterations (DNA methylation, histone modifications, nucleosome positioning and non-coding RNAs) are identified to be strongly associated with cancer [5]. DNA methylation is an important mechanism of epigenetic variability involved in gene expression, which plays key roles in the development of cancer [68]. Aberrant methylation of CpG islands of the promoter regions is the major alternative to accomplish tumor suppressor gene (TSG) silencing [911]. CDH1, a tumor suppressor gene, also called as epithelial cadherin (E-cadherin) and cadherin-1, is located on 16q23 [12]. CDH1, a member of the cadherin family, plays an important role in epithelial cell-cell adhesion and in maintaining normal tissue architecture [13]. The reduction of CDH1 expression may involve in invasion and metastasis of several cancers [1315].

However, the association between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer remains to be certified. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationships between ovarian cancer tissues and nonmalignant ovarian tissues and Low malignant potential (LMP) tumor tissues. In addition, we also assess the relationship between CDH1 promoter methylation and clinicopathological features in ovarian cancer.

Methods

Literature search and selection criteria

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang databases, using the following keywords and search items: (CDH1 OR E-cadherin OR cadherin 1) AND (ovarian OR ovary) AND (cancer OR carcinoma OR tumor) AND methylation. The search updated until December 25. 2015. Moreover, a manual search of the references was also conducted to identify the potentially additional articles.

For eligible studies, studies must meet the following criteria: (1) all patients were diagnosed for primary ovarian cancer; (2) the study was about CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer; (3) study must have sufficient data about the frequencies of CDH1 promoter methylation to assess to the relationship between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer; (4) only the most recent paper or the most complete one was selected to avoid duplicated publications. Study was excluded if it did not meet the inclusion criteria above.

Data extraction

For each eligible study, the following information were extracted: the first author’s name, publication year, methylation region, country, ethnicity, the method of methylation detection, type of control, the number of methylation, the sample size, clinicopathological parameters, such as the number of tumor stage, the number of tumor histology, etc. Nonmalignant ovarian tissues were defined as controls, including benign disease, normal tissues or adjacent normal tissues. Low malignant potential (LMP) tumors were also served as a single control group.

Statistical analysis

Meta-analysis was conducted using the STATA software (version 12.0, Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). The pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated to evaluate the association between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer risk. Between-study heterogeneity was examined using the Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistic [16]. If I2 < 50 % and p ≥ 0.1 were considered as a measure of lack heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model was applied; otherwise, the random-effects model was used [17, 18]. Publication bias was assessed by using Egger’s linear regression test [19].

Results

Study characteristics

One hundred twenty-seven potentially relevant articles were initially identified by the databases above. These studies were further selected based on the inclusion criteria. Finally, a total of 9 studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the current meta-analysis (Fig. 1). The methylation region of these studies was promoter. Among these studies, 8 studies used methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP) and 1 study used methylation specific headloop suppression PCR (MSHSP). There were two control groups, including nonmalignant control with 8 studies and LMP control with 2 studies. 8 studies evaluated the association between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer risk, 4 studies evaluated the relationship between CDH1 and tumor histology, and 3 studies assessed the relationship between CDH1 and tumor stage. The main characteristics of included studies were listed in Table 1 [2026].
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of the literature search strategy

Table 1

The main characteristics of included studies in this meta-analysis

First author

Region

Country

Race

Method

Sample

Control

Case

Control

Stage 1-2

Stage 3-4

Serous

Non-serous

M/N

M/N

M/N

M/N

M/N

M/N

Rathi 2002 [35]

Promoter

USA

Caucasians

MSP

Tissue

NMT

14/49

2/39

-

-

-

-

Makarla 2005 [21]

Promoter

USA

Caucasians

MSP

Tissue

NMT

6/23

4/39

-

-

2/9

3/13

Makarla 2005 [21]

Promoter

USA

Caucasians

MSP

Tissue

LMP

6/23

4/23

-

-

-

-

Yuecheng 2006 [26]

Promoter

China

Asians

MSP

Tissue

NMT

34/80

0/34

-

-

-

-

Shen 2007 [23]

Promoter

China

Asians

MSP

Tissue

NMT

18/63

1/30

2/22

16/41

9/34

9/29

Montavon 2012 [34]

Promoter

Australia

Caucasians

MSHSP

Tissue

NMT

17/78

1/5

-

-

-

-

Bhagat 2013 [20]

Promoter

India

Asians

MSP

Tissue

NM

31/86

2/34

8/23

23/63

17/44

7/25

Bhagat 2013 [20]

Promoter

India

Asians

MSP

Tissue

LMP

31/86

2/14

-

-

-

-

Wu 2014 [25]

Promoter

China

Asians

MSP

Tissue

NMT

32/50

-

7/12

25/38

25/35

7/15

Moselhy 2015 [22]

Promoter

Saudi Arabia

Asians

MSP

Tissue

NMT

12/18

8/32

-

-

-

-

Sun and Zhang 2015 [24]

Promoter

China

Asians

MSP

Tissue

NMT

15/38

1/42

-

-

-

-

MSP Methylation Specific PCR, MSHSP Methylation specific headloop suppression PCR, NMT nonmalignant tissues, LMP low malignant potential tumor, “-” indicates data not available, M stands for the number of methylation positive, N stands for the number of the total samples

The association between CDH1 promoter methylation and OC risk

Significant between-study heterogeneity was not detected (I2 = 16.6 % and P = 0.299), a fixed-effects model was used. A significant association was observed between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer among 8 studies (OR = 8.71, 95 % CI = 4.87 - 15.58, P < 0.001), including 435 malignant tissues from ovarian cancer and 255 nonmalignant tissues (Fig. 2). Subgroup analysis based on the ethnic population showed that the CDH1 promoter methylation status was significant associated with the risk of ovarian cancer in Asian population and Caucasian population (OR = 13.20, 95 % CI = 6.12 - 28.45, P < 0.001; OR = 3.84, 95 % CI = 1.52 - 9.74, P = 0.005; respectively) (Fig. 3). No significant association was found in the comparison of ovarian cancer and LMP tumor (OR = 2.40, 95 % CI = 0.86 - 6.76, P = 0.096), reporting a total of 109 ovarian cancer patients and 37 low malignant tumor patients in 2 studies (Table 2).
Fig. 2

Forest plot of the association between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer

Fig. 3

Forest plot of the association between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer based on subgroup analysis of the ethnicity

Table 2

Summary of the association of CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer

 

Studies

Overall OR 95CI %

I2; p

P value

Cases

Controls

p (Egger’s test)

NMT group

8

8.71(4.87 - 15.58)

16.6 %; 0.299

<0.001

435

255

0.335

Race

       

Asians

5

13.20 (6.12 - 28.45)

0.0 %; 0.545

<0.001

285

172

 

Caucasians

3

3.84 (1.52 - 9.74)

0.0 %; 0.380

0.005

150

83

 

LMT group

2

2.40 (0.86 - 6.76)

0.0 %; 0.512

0.096

109

37

 

Clinicopathological features

  

Patients

 

Histology

    

Stage 1-2

Stage 3-4

 
 

4

1.41 (0.76 - 2.60)

0.0 %; 0.483

0.273

122

82

0.935

     

Patients

 

Stage

    

Serous

Non-serous

 
 

3

0.55 (0.28 - 1.08)

45.3 %; 0.161

0.082

57

142

0.316

NMT nonmalignant tissues, LMP low malignant potential tumor

The association of CDH1 promoter methylation and clinicopathological features

The associations between CDH1 promoter methylation and clinicopathological features were further analyzed in the present meta-analysis (Table 2), such as tumor stage (57 early ovarian cancer patients vs. 142 advanced ovarian cancer patients) and tumor histology (122 serous cancer patients vs. 82 non-serous cancer patients), including 3 studies and 4 studies respectively. Between-study heterogeneity was lack (P > 0.1), the fixed-effects model was used. The result showed that CDH1 promoter methylation was not significantly associated with tumor histology and tumor stage (OR = 1.41, 95 % CI = 0.76 - 2.60, P = 0.273; OR = 0.55, 95 % CI = 0.28 - 1.08, P = 0.082; respectively).

Publication bias

Egger’s test was performed to estimate the publication bias of included studies. Egger’s test of CDH1 methylation of cancer versus nonmalignant control showed that there was not any evidence of publication bias (P = 0.335). No publication bias was detected in tumor histology and tumor stage (P = 0.935 and P = 0.316 respectively) (Table 2).

Discussion

The gene epigenomic regulation of initiation and progression of cancer has two essential components of the molecular mechanism, which are the hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes and hypomethylation of oncogenes [2729]. The CpG islands methylation of the promoter is an important reason for loss of gene expression, which can lead to the transcription repression of the gene [30]. Inactivation of CDH1 by promoter hypermethylation has been observed in several types of cancers, including breast cancer, ovarian cancer and gastric cancer [3133]. However, the frequency of CDH1 promoter methylation was inconsistent. Montavon et al. reported that the frequency of CDH1 promoter methylation was 21.8 % and 20 % in ovarian cancer and nonmalignant ovarian disease respectively [34]. Rathi et al. reported that the frequency of CDH1 promoter methylation was 28.6 % and 5 % in ovarian cancer tissues and nonmalignant tissues respectively [35]. So the current meta-analysis was performed to identify the association between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer risk.

A total of 9 studies including 485 cancer tissues and 255 nonmalignant tissues were involved in our study. CDH1 promoter methylation had an increased risk in cancer tissues (OR = 8.71, 95 % CI = 4.87 - 15.58, P < 0.001) in comparison with nonmalignant tissues. Subgroup analysis based on the ethnicity suggested that the CDH1 promoter methylation status was significantly increased risks of ovarian cancer in Asian population and Caucasian population (OR = 13.20, 95 % CI = 6.12 - 28.45; OR = 3.84, 95 % CI = 1.52 - 9.74; respectively). The OR value of Asian population subgroup (OR = 13.20) was higher than that in Caucasian population subgroup (OR = 3.84), suggesting that Asian population can be more susceptible to CDH1 promoter methylation. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as only small subjects were included in subgroup analyses. No significant association was observed between ovarian cancer and LMP tumor (P = 0.096), including a total of 109 ovarian cancer patients and 37 low malignant tumor patients.

We further evaluated the relationships of CDH1 promoter methylation with clinicopathological features, such as tumor histology and tumor stage. Our findings indicated that the CDH1 promoter methylation status was not significantly associated with tumor stage and histology. Publication bias was not detected by Egger’s test (all P > 0.05).

The current study had some limitations. Firstly, the search strategy was restricted to articles published in English or Chinese. Secondly, the total sample size was not sufficient larger (less than 1000) [36], our results may be lack vigorous power to evaluate the associations between CDH1 promoter methylation and ovarian cancer risk. Thirdly, based on the limitation of insufficient data, we did not study the CDH1 promoter methylation status in other clinicopathological features, such as tumor grade, sex status and age etc. Therefore, a meta-analysis including more studies with larger sample size should be necessary to confirm the results in the future.

Conclusion

CDH1 promoter methylation is significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk. In addition, the potential association on CDH1 promoter methylation and some clinicopathological features are still unclear due to the limitation of studies and sample size.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

All data is available in this paper.

Declarations

Funding

None.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, The Second Hospital of Jilin University
(2)
Plastic Surgery Department, China-Japan Friendship Hospital Affiliated Jilin University
(3)
Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, The Second People’s Hospital of Dunhua
(4)
Radiology Department, The First Hospital of Jilin University

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kaja S et al. Detection of novel biomarkers for ovarian cancer with an optical nanotechnology detection system enabling label-free diagnostics. J Biomed Opt. 2012;17(8):0814121–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Hall M et al. Targeted anti-vascular therapies for ovarian cancer: current evidence. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(2):250–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Network CGAR. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature. 2011;474(7353):609–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Khan SA, Reddy D, Gupta S. Global histone post-translational modifications and cancer: Biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment? World J Biol Chem. 2015;6(4):333–45.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Pouliot M-C et al. The role of methylation in breast cancer susceptibility and treatment. Anticancer Res. 2015;35(9):4569–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrió E, Suelves M. DNA methylation dynamics in muscle development and disease. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015;7:19.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Henning SM et al. Epigenetic effects of green tea polyphenols in cancer. Epigenomics. 2013;5(6):729–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Herman JG, Baylin SB. Gene silencing in cancer in association with promoter hypermethylation. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(21):2042–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Esteller M, Herman JG. Cancer as an epigenetic disease: DNA methylation and chromatin alterations in human tumours. J Pathol. 2002;196(1):1–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang T et al. Meta-analyses of gene methylation and smoking behavior in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Sci Rep. 2015;5:8897.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Berx G et al. E-cadherin is a tumour/invasion suppressor gene mutated in human lobular breast cancers. EMBO J. 1995;14(24):6107–15.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Oka H et al. Expression of E-cadherin cell adhesion molecules in human breast cancer tissues and its relationship to metastasis. Cancer Res. 1993;53(7):1696–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Takeichi M. Cadherin cell adhesion receptors as a morphogenetic regulator. Science. 1991;251(5000):1451–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tsanou E et al. The E-cadherin adhesion molecule and colorectal cancer. A global literature approach. Anticancer Res. 2008;28(6A):3815–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Coory MD. Comment on: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(3):932.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Higgins JP et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. DerSimonian R. Meta-analysis in the design and monitoring of clinical trials. Stat Med. 1996;15(12):1237–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Peters JL et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295(6):676–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bhagat R et al. Altered expression of β-catenin, E-cadherin, and E-cadherin promoter methylation in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Tumor Biol. 2013;34(4):2459–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Makarla PB et al. Promoter hypermethylation profile of ovarian epithelial neoplasms. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(15):5365–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Moselhy SS et al. Hypermethylation of P15, P16, and E-cadherin genes in ovarian cancer. Toxicol Ind Health. 2015;31(10):924–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Shen WJ et al. Promoter hypermethylation of CDH1 gene in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Chin J Pract Gynecol Obstet. 2007;23(07):520–2.Google Scholar
  24. Sun B, Zhang X. Value of abnormal methylation of CDH1 gene and the detection of serum HE4 in the identification of ovarian cancer and ovarian endometriosis cyst. Hainan Med J. 2015;26(20):3023–5.Google Scholar
  25. Wu X et al. Clinical importance and therapeutic implication of E-cadherin gene methylation in human ovarian cancer. Med Oncol. 2014;31(8):1–8.Google Scholar
  26. Yuecheng Y, Hongmei L, Xiaoyan X. Clinical evaluation of E-cadherin expression and its regulation mechanism in epithelial ovarian cancer. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2006;23(1):65–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Bodmer W. 1998 Runme Shaw Memorial Lecture: somatic evolution of cancer. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1999;28(3):323–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Corson TW, Gallie BL. One hit, two hits, three hits, more? Genomic changes in the development of retinoblastoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2007;46(7):617–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Franco R et al. Oxidative stress, DNA methylation and carcinogenesis. Cancer Lett. 2008;266(1):6–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Yoshiura K et al. Silencing of the E-cadherin invasion-suppressor gene by CpG methylation in human carcinomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1995;92(16):7416–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Tamura G et al. E-Cadherin gene promoter hypermethylation in primary human gastric carcinomas. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(7):569–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fearon ER. BRCA1 and E-Cadherin promoter hypermethylation and gene inactivation in cancer—association or mechanism? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(7):515–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu X, Chu K-M. E-cadherin and gastric cancer: cause, consequence, and applications. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:637308.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Montavon C et al. Prognostic and diagnostic significance of DNA methylation patterns in high grade serous ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124(3):582–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rathi A et al. Methylation profiles of sporadic ovarian tumors and nonmalignant ovaries from high-risk women. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(11):3324–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Karahalios A et al. A review of the reporting and handling of missing data in cohort studies with repeated assessment of exposure measures. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):96.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Wang et al. 2016

Advertisement