Abstract:Dear Editor, This letter reports some observations on the recent article entitled “Meta‐analysis of the prognostic value of CpG island methylator phenotype in gastric cancer” by Powell et al (2018) reporting that gastric cancers showing CpG island methylator phenotype‐high (CIMP‐H) were associated with poor 5‐year survival. The conclusion was reached by a well‐conducted meta‐analysis. However, as the authors claimed, there was significant heterogeneity among the 10 included studies (I = 88%, P < .001), but they applied a fixed‐effects model, which might limit the conclusion. As a result of a lack of a standardized definition of CIMP in gastric cancer, the authors noticed that the conflicting survival results might be caused by the choice of CIMP gene panel. Currently, gene‐specific methylation markers and genomewide DNA methylation profile were the 2 major methods to define CIMP. To limit the heterogeneity among studies and make the conclusion more precise, we regrouped the 10 included studies into 3 subgroups according to different methodologies and the similarities of gene panels, and then carried out subgroup analysis. The studies of Park et al and Shigeyasu et al were classified as the multiple gene panel group because over 15 CIMP marker genes were used in each of them. An et al, Ben Ayed‐Guerfali et al, He et al, Ksiaa et al, and Kusano et al were classified as the p16 or MINT‐based gene panel group, whereas the remaining 3 studies (Chang et al, Chen et al and Liu et al) were classified as the mixed gene panel group because there were no similarities among them. By subgroup analysis, we found that CIMP‐H was significantly associated with poor prognosis in the p16 or MINT‐based gene panel group, but not in the other 2 subgroups (Figure 1A). Interestingly, the overall effects of CIMP‐H in the p16 or MINT‐based gene panel group were almost the same as those in the total of the 3 subgroups (Z = 2.62, P = .009; Z = 2.61, P = .009) and the p16 or MINT-based gene panel group presents 51.5% in weight among the 3 subgroups, suggesting that the overall effects of CIMP‐H in the total of the 3 subgroups were mainly decided by the p16 or MINT‐based gene panel group. As a result of large heterogeneity, we then analyzed the data by the random‐effects model. Surprisingly, in all 3 subgroups, CIMP‐H did not have any association with poor 5‐year survival (P > .05) (Figure 1B). In summary, we may conclude that CIMP is not a prognostic marker in gastric cancer.

CIMP-positive Glioma is Associated with Better Prognosis: A Systematic Analysis

Tracking the Features of CIMP-positive Glioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Snail/CXCL-8 Axis Promotes Expression of the Novel Surface Marker CD58 and Self-Renewal of Tumor-Initiating Cells in Colorectal Cancer

Tracking the Correlation Between CpG Island Methylator Phenotype and Other Molecular Features and Clinicopathological Features in Human Colorectal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

High Cpg Island Methylator Phenotype is Associated with Lymph Node Metastasis and Prognosis in Gastric Cancer

CpG Island Methylator Phenotype Associated with Tumor Recurrence in Tumor–Node–Metastasis Stage I Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Comprehensive analysis of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)‐high, ‐low, and ‐negative colorectal cancers based on protein marker expression and molecular features

Identification of Key Genes in Glioma CpG Island Methylator Phenotype Via Network Analysis of Gene Expression Data

Correlation of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype with Poor Prognosis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Development and Validation of a CIMP-associated Prognostic Model for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Prognostic Value of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in Gastric Cancer.

Clinical and prognosis value of the CIMP status combined with MLH1 or p16 INK4a methylation in colorectal cancer

Clinical prognostic value of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation, O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation, and 1p19q co-deletion in glioma patients

Expression and Prognostic Value of PIM-1 Kinase in Gliomas.

Deciphering the etiology and role in oncogenic transformation of the CpG island methylator phenotype: a pan-cancer analysis

Epigenetic Suppression of EGFR Signaling in G-CIMP+ Glioblastomas.

Immune microenvironmental heterogeneity according to tumor DNA methylation phenotypes in microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancers

Lower ratio of IMPDH1 to IMPDH2 sensitizes gliomas to chemotherapy

Different Definitions of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer: a Systematic Review

Comprehensive Biostatistical Analysis of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in Colorectal Cancer Using a Large Population-Based Sample

Predictive value of PIMREG in the prognosis and response to immune checkpoint blockade of glioma patients