Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic serum biomarkers of colorectal cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Our systematic review summarizes the evidence concerning the accuracy of serum diagnostic and prognostic tests for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

The databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched iteratively to identify the relevant literature for serum markers of CRC published from 1950 to August 2012. The articles that provided adequate information to meet the requirements of the meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic markers were included. A 2-by-2 table of each diagnostic marker and its hazard ratio (HR) and the confidence interval (CI) of each prognostic marker was directly or indirectly extracted from the included papers, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic marker and the pooled HR and the CI of the prognostic marker were subsequently calculated using the extracted data.

Results

In total, 104 papers related to the diagnostic markers and 49 papers related to the prognostic serum markers of CRC were collected, and only 19 of 92 diagnostic markers were investigated in more than two studies, whereas 21 out of 44 prognostic markers were included in two or more studies. All of the pooled sensitivities of the diagnostic markers with > = 3 repetitions were less than 50%, and the meta-analyses of the prognostic markers with more than 3 studies were performed, VEGF with highest (2.245, CI: 1.347-3.744) and MMP-7 with lowest (1.099, CI: 1.018-1.187)) pooled HRs are presented.

Conclusions

The quality of studies addressing the diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of the tests was poor, and the results were highly heterogeneous. The poor characteristics indicate that these tests are of little value for clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Liu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4126674 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWe performed a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic values of serum single and multiplex tumor-associated autoantibodies (TAAbs) in patients with lung cancer (LC).MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for relevant studies investigating serum TAAbs for the diagnosis of LC. The primary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the test.ResultsThe systematic review and meta-analysis included 31 articles with single autoantibody and 39 with multiplex autoantibodies. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was the most common detection method. For the diagnosis of patients with all stages and early-stage LC, different single or combinations of TAAbs demonstrated different diagnostic values. Although individual TAAbs showed low diagnostic sensitivity, the combination of multiplex autoantibodies offered relatively high sensitivity. For the meta-analysis of a same panel of autoantibodies in patients at all stages of LC, the pooled results of the panel of 6 TAAbs (p53, NY-ESO-1, CAGE, GBU4-5, Annexin 1 and SOX2) were: sensitivity 38% (95% CI 0.35-0.40), specificity 89% (95% CI 0.86-0.91), diagnostic accuracy 65.9% (range 62.5-81.8%), AUC 0.52 (0.48-0.57), while the summary estimates of 7 TAAbs (p53, CAGE, NY-ESO-1, GBU4-5, SOX2, MAGE A4 and Hu-D) were: sensitivity 47% (95% CI 0.34-0.60), specificity 90% (95% CI 0.89-0.92), diagnostic accuracy 78.4% (range 67.5-88.8%), AUC 0.90 (0.87-0.93). For the meta-analysis of the same panel of autoantibodies in patients at early-stage of LC, the sensitivities of both panels of 7 TAAbs and 6 TAAbs were 40% and 29.7%, while their specificities were 91% and 87%, respectively.ConclusionsSerum single or combinations of multiplex autoantibodies can be used as a tool for the diagnosis of LC patients at all stages or early-stage, but the combination of multiplex autoantibodies shows a higher detection capacity; the diagnostic value of the panel of 7 TAAbs is higher than the panel of 6 TAAbs, which may be used as potential biomarkers for the early detection of LC.

Project description:BackgroundSalivary diagnostics and their utility as a nonaggressive approach for breast cancer diagnosis have been extensively studied in recent years. This meta-analysis assesses the diagnostic value of salivary biomarkers in differentiating between patients with breast cancer and controls.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of studies related to salivary diagnostics published in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Ovid, Science Direct, Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar. The articles were chosen utilizing inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as assessing their quality. Specificity and sensitivity, along with negative and positive likelihood ratios (NLR and PLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were calculated based on random- or fixed-effects model. Area under the curve (AUC) and summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) were plotted and evaluated, and Fagan's Nomogram was evaluated for clinical utility.ResultsOur systematic review and meta-analysis included 14 papers containing 121 study units with 8639 adult subjects (4149 breast cancer patients and 4490 controls without cancer). The pooled specificity and sensitivity were 0.727 (95% CI: 0.713-0.740) and 0.717 (95% CI: 0.703-0.730), respectively. The pooled NLR and PLR were 0.396 (95% CI: 0.364-0.432) and 2.597 (95% CI: 2.389-2.824), respectively. The pooled DOR was 7.837 (95% CI: 6.624-9.277), with the AUC equal to 0.801. The Fagan's nomogram showed post-test probabilities of 28% and 72% for negative and positive outcomes, respectively. We also conducted subgroup analyses to determine specificity, sensitivity, DOR, PLR, and NLR based on the mean age of patients (≤52 or >52 years old), saliva type (stimulated and unstimulated saliva), biomarker measurement method (mass spectrometry [MS] and non-MS measurement methods), sample size (≤55 or >55), biomarker type (proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics and proteomics, and reagent-free biophotonic), and nations.ConclusionSaliva, as a noninvasive biomarker, has the potential to accurately differentiate breast cancer patients from healthy controls.

Project description:Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a 5-year survival rate below 5%. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) is the most commonly used blood-based biomarker for PDAC in current clinical practice, despite having been shown repeatedly to be inaccurate and have poor diagnostic performance. This review aims to assess the reported diagnostic accuracy of all blood-based biomarkers investigated to date in PDAC, by directly comparing individual biomarkers and multi-biomarker panels, both containing CA19-9 and not (novel). A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA standards in July 2020. Individualized search strategies for three academic databases identified 5,885 studies between the years 1973 and 2020. After two rounds of screening, 250 studies were included. Data were extracted and assessed for bias. A multivariate three-level meta-analysis with subgroup moderators was run in R using AUC values as effect size. On the basis of this model, the pooled AUC value for all multi-biomarker panels (AUC = 0.898; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-0.91) was significantly higher than all single biomarkers (AUC = 0.803; 95% CI: 0.78-0.83; P < 0.0001). The pooled AUC value for CA19-9 alone was significantly lower compared with the multi-biomarker panels containing CA19-9 (P < 0.0001). For the novel biomarkers, the pooled AUC for single biomarkers was also significantly lower compared with multi-biomarker panels (P < 0.0001). Novel biomarkers that have been repeatedly examined across the literature, such as TIMP-1, CEA, and CA125, are highlighted as promising. These results suggest that CA19-9 may be best used as an addition to a panel of biomarkers rather than alone, and that multi-biomarker panels generate the most robust results in blood-based PDAC diagnosis.SignificanceIn a systematic review and three-level multivariate meta-analysis, it is shown for the first time that blood-based multi-biomarker panels for the diagnosis of PDAC exhibit superior performance in comparison with single biomarkers. CA19-9 is demonstrated to have limited utility alone, and to perform poorly in patient control cohorts of both healthy and benign individuals. Multi-biomarker panels containing CA19-9 produce the best diagnostic performance overall.

Project description:BackgroundNoninvasive and effective methods of early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) are underexplored. Inflammation is known to play an important role in the tumor microenvironment of CRC. Therefore, the aim of this study was to elucidate novel inflammatory biomarkers related to early diagnosis and prognosis of CRC.MethodsBased on the results from a multiplex assay and a pan-cancer screening of TCGA data with 18 cancer types, we identified several targeted biomarkers. We further confirmed these results using a trial cohort of 112 CRC patients and 151 controls (59 healthy donors, 52 colitis and 40 colorectal adenoma patients) by Elisa and immunohistochemistry (IHC). The biomarkers expression levels in CRC patients of different clinical stages were compared. The targeted biomarkers panel was developed using logistic regression model and was then validated using an independent cohort including 75 CRC patients and 90 controls (35 healthy donors, 20 colitis and 35 colorectal adenoma patients). Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve and overall survival analysis was used for prognosis. Gene ontology (GO) analyses and Gene set enrichment analyses (GSEA) were performed to predict the function of the candidate biomarkers.ResultsCCL20 and IL-17A were identified as candidate biomarkers using multiplex assay and pan-cancer screening of TCGA data. Elisa and IHC demonstrated that both CCL20 and IL-17A levels were highly expressed in CRC patients, more especially in patients with advanced stage disease. A signature expression of the two biomarkers showed high diagnostic accuracy of CRC. Importantly, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were still satisfactory in the early stage and low carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level groups. Bioinformatics analysis revealed that CCL20 and IL-17A may be involved in CRC progression. In addition, the diagnostic performance of CCL20 and IL-17A in combination was superior to that of either marker alone.ConclusionsSerum CCL20 and IL-17A levels were identified as independent prognostic markers for CRC. The CCL20-IL-17A panel exhibited a good performance in the diagnosis of early stage CRC.