Dataset Information

Blood-based microRNAs as biomarkers for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is common and associated with significant mortality. Current screening methods for CRC lack patient compliance. microRNAs (miRNAs), identified in body fluids, are negative regulators of gene expression and are dysregulated in many cancers, including CRC. This paper summarises studies identifying blood-based miRNAs dysregulated in CRC compared with healthy controls in an attempt to evaluate their use as a screening tool for the diagnosis of CRC.

Methods

A search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) and grey literature was performed between January 2002 and April 2016. Studies reporting plasma or serum miRNAs in the diagnosis of CRC compared with healthy controls were selected. Patient demographics, type of patient sample (serum or plasma), method of miRNA detection, type of normalisation, and the number of significantly dysregulated miRNAs identified were recorded. Statistical evaluation of dysregulated miRNAs using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) was performed.

Results

Thirty-four studies investigating plasma or serum miRNAs in the diagnosis of CRC were included. A total of 31 miRNAs were found to be either upregulated (n=17) or downregulated (n=14) in CRC cases as compared with controls. Fourteen studies identified panels of ⩾2 dysregulated miRNAs. The highest AUC, 0.943, was identified using a panel of 4 miRNAs with 83.3% sensitivity and 93.1% specificity. Meta-analysis of studies identifying a single dysregulated miRNA in CRC cases compared with controls was performed. Overall sensitivity and specificity of 28 individual miRNAs in the diagnosis of CRC were 76% (95% CI 72%-80%) and 76% (95% CI 72%-80%), respectively, indicating good discriminative ability of miRNAs as biomarkers for CRC. These data did not change with sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Blood-based miRNAs distinguish patients with CRC from healthy controls with high sensitivity and specificity comparable to other common and invasive currently used screening methods for CRC. In future, miRNAs may be used as a relatively non-invasive blood-based marker for detection of CRC.

SUBMITTER: Carter JV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5355921 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Recent studies have shown that blood-based miRNAs are dysregulated in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and are therefore a potential tool for the diagnosis of AMI. Therefore, this study summarized and evaluated studies focused on microRNAs as novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of AMI from the last ten years. Methods: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central database, and EMBASE were searched between January 2010 and December 2019. Studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of circulating microRNAs in AMI were chosen. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess the test performance of miRNAs. Results: A total of 58 studies that included 8,206 participants assessed the diagnostic accuracy of circulating miRNAs in AMI. The main results of the meta-analyses are as follows: (1) Total miRNAs: the overall pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.79-0.85) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90), respectively. The AUC value was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93) in the overall summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve. (2) The panel of two miRNAs: sensitivity: 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77-0.94), specificity: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.72-0.91), AUC: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94). (3) The panel of three miRNAs: sensitivity: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.94), specificity: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.77-0.92), AUC: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94). (4) Results by types of miRNAs: miRNA-1: sensitivity: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.84), specificity: 0.86 (95% CI: 0.77-0.91), AUC: 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90); miRNA-133a: sensitivity: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69-0.94), specificity: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.61-0.99), AUC: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95); miRNA-208b: sensitivity: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69-0.88), specificity: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.77-0.99), AUC: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93); miRNA-499: sensitivity: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77-0.91), specificity: 0.95 (95% CI: 0.89-0.98), AUC: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97). Conclusion: miRNAs may be used as potential biomarkers for the detection of AMI. For single, stand-alone miRNAs, miRNA-499 may have better diagnostic accuracy compared to other miRNAs. We propose that a panel of multiple miRNAs with high sensitivity and specificity should be tested.

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: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.