Dataset Information

The diagnostic role of microRNA-34a in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

MicroRNA-34a (miR-34a) is a master regulator of tumor suppression in breast cancer (BC). This systematic review aims to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of miR-34a in the detection of BC as a biomarker.

Results

A total of 1858 BC cases and 494 controls from thirteen eligible studies reported in 9 publications were included. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 85.50% (95% CI: 83.80-87.00%), 70.00% (95% CI: 65.80-74.10%), 0.29 (95% CI: 0.19-0.43), 2.58 (95% CI: 1.91-3.43), and 9.39 (95% CI: 5.47-16.12), respectively. Similarly, the overall area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.80, indicating the high conservation of miR-34a as a biomarker. Furthermore, subgroup analysis suggested that the use of miR-34a as a biomarker is more accurate in tissue-based sample of invasive BC. We also indicated that miR-34a is a capable biomarker in diagnosing BC in people of Caucasian descent.

Materials and methods

A systematic search was conducted for eligible publications that address miR-34a expression level in BC cases and noncancerous controls. Diagnostic capacity of miR-34a for BC was assessed using pooled sensitivity and specificity, DOR, and AUC of SROC. PLR and NLR were verified to estimate the miR-34a diagnostic accuracy in clinical level. The quality of the included studies was assessed by QUADAS-2.

Conclusions

These findings suggest miR-34a is a promising non-invasive biomarker in diagnosing BC. Well-designed cohort studies should be implemented to warrant the diagnostic value of miR-34a in clinical purposes.

SUBMITTER: Imani S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5410295 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The diagnostic role of microRNA-34a in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Imani Saber S Zhang Xianqin X Hosseinifard Hossein H Fu Shangyi S Fu Junjiang J

Oncotarget 20170401 14

<h4>Background</h4>MicroRNA-34a (miR-34a) is a master regulator of tumor suppression in breast cancer (BC). This systematic review aims to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of miR-34a in the detection of BC as a biomarker.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 1858 BC cases and 494 controls from thirteen eligible studies reported in 9 publications were included. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 8 ...[more]

PMID: 28423566

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting between the use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), defined as DBT alone or combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and the use of DM alone through a systematic review and meta-analysis.Materials and methodsOvid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases were searched for articles published until March 25, 2020. We selected studies that reported diagnostic accuracy in women who were recalled after screening or symptomatic. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. We compared the diagnostic accuracy between DBT and DM alone using meta-regression and subgroup analyses by modality of intervention, country, existence of calcifications, breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category threshold, study design, protocol for participant sampling, sample size, reason for diagnostic examination, and number of readers who interpreted the studies.ResultsTwenty studies (n = 44513) that compared DBT and DM alone were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.94), respectively, for DBT, which were higher than 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.83) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.89), respectively, for DM alone (p < 0.001). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) for DBT and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.88) for DM alone. The higher sensitivity and specificity of DBT than DM alone were consistently noted in most subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ConclusionUse of DBT was more accurate than DM alone for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Women with clinical symptoms or abnormal screening findings could be more effectively evaluated for breast cancer using DBT, which has a superior diagnostic performance compared to DM alone.

Dataset Information

The diagnostic role of microRNA-34a in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Results

Materials and methods

Conclusions

Publications

The diagnostic role of microRNA-34a in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets