Dataset Information

Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to collect published studies and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different markers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang for relevant studies until April 29, 2020. The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) values of the diagnostic markers were combined by a bivariate mixed effect model to compare their diagnostic accuracy. We explored heterogeneity through meta-regression. In total, 244 records from 101 articles were included, with 49,432 total study subjects (13,109 cases and 36,323 controls). EA-IgG, Zta-IgG, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA load in non-invasive nasopharyngeal brushings (EBV-DNA brushings) have both high sensitivity and specificity, EBNA1-IgG and VCA-IgG have only high sensitivity, and EBNA1-IgA, VCA-IgA, Rta-IgG, Zta-IgA, HSP70, and serum sialic acid (SA) have only high specificity. The bivariate mixed effect model of EA-IgA had a significant threshold effect. Meta-regression analysis showed that ethnicity affected EBNA1-IgA, EBNA1-IgG, VCA-IgA, and EBV DNA load in plasma, test methods affected EBNA1-IgG, publication year affected VCA-IgA, and sample size affected Rta-IgG. There was significant publication bias for VCA-IgA and Rta-IgG (P < 0.05). EA-IgG, Zta-IgG, and EBV-DNA brushings are good diagnostic markers for NPC. The diagnostic accuracy was influenced by publication year, sample size, test methods, and ethnicity.

SUBMITTER: Feng Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7531263 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.

Feng Yiwei Y Xia Wei W He Guangyao G Ke Rongdan R Liu Lei L Xie Mao M Tang Anzhou A Yi Xiang X

Frontiers in oncology 20200918

The aim of the present study was to collect published studies and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different markers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang for relevant studies until April 29, 2020. The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative l ...[more]

PMID: 33072558

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNumerous individual studies have investigated the diagnostic value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), but the conclusions remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection in the diagnosis of NPC.MethodsPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019145532. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese data libraries (Wanfang, CNKI, and CBM) were searched up to January 2019. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood, negative likelihood, and diagnostic odds ratios were conducted in this meta-analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves evaluated the test-performance global summary. Publication bias was examined by Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test.ResultsForty-seven studies with 8382 NPC patients (NPC group) and 15,089 individuals without NPC (Control group) were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood (+?LR), negative likelihood (-LR), DOR and AUC of EBV-DNA in diagnosis of NPC were: 0.76 (95% CI 0.73-0.77), 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97), 14.66 (95% CI 9.97-21.55), 0.19 (95% CI 0.13-0.28), 84 (95% CI 50.45-139.88), 0.96 (SE: 0.001), and 0.55 (95% CI 0.54-0.57), 0.96 (95% CI 0.96-0.97), 12.91 (95% CI 9.55-17.45), 0.35 (95% CI 0.29-0.43), 39.57 (95% CI 26.44-59.23), 0.94 (SE: 0.002) for the EA-IgA, and 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.85), 0.89 (95% CI 0.88-0.89), 6.73 (95% CI5.38-8.43), 0.17 (95% CI 0.12-0.23), 43.03 (95% CI 31.51-58.76), 0.93 (SE: 0.007) for the VCA-IgA, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.88), 0.87 (95% CI 0.88-0.90), 7.55 (95% CI 5.79-9.87), 0.16 (95% CI 0.13-0.19), 50.95 (95% CI 34.35-75.57), 0.94 (SE: 0.008) for the EBNA1-IgA, and 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.71), 0.94 (95% CI 0.94-0.95), 9.84 (95% CI 8.40-11.54), 0.25 (95% CI 0.21-0.31), 40.59 (95% CI 32.09-51.35), 0.95 (SE: 0.005) for the Rta-IgG. The EBV-DNA had larger AUC compared with other EBV-based antibodies (P?<?0.05), while the difference between EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG was not statistically significant (P?>?0.05).ConclusionsEBV-DNA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection have high accuracy in early diagnosis NPC. In addition, EBV-DNA detection has the higher diagnosis accuracy in NPC. On the other hand, EA-IgA is suitable for the diagnosis but not NPC screening.

Project description:The lack of accurate biomarkers impeded the screening, diagnosis and early treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). As a result of the development of high-throughput transcriptome analysis techniques, circular RNAs, a newly discovered class of noncoding RNAs, were recognized as potential novel biomarkers. This meta-analysis was performed to update the diagnostic roles of circular RNAs for HCC. We acquired 23 articles from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to September 2021. The overall sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84), and the specificity was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.85), with an AUC of 0.88 (0.85-0.91). Considering of the significant heterogeneity, studies were divided into four groups based on the control types. The circular RNAs in exosomes had a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.61-0.75), and a highest specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96). The pooled sensitivity of circular RNAs in serum/plasma was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87), and the pooled specificity was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86). The pooled sensitivity of circular RNAs distinguishing tumor tissue from chronic hepatitis/cirrhosis tissues was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.48-0.64), and specificity was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.67-0.82). When the controls were adjacent tissues, the sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70-0.84), and the specificity was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.85). Hsa_circ_0001445 with a pooled sensitivity of 0.81, a specificity of 0.76 and an AUC of 0.85 in two studies, might be a suitable diagnostic blood biomarker for HCC. Relying on function in HCC, the AUC of subgroups were 0.88 (95%CI: 0.84-0.90) (function group) and 0.87 (95%CI: 0.84-0.90) (unknown function group). As for only reported in HCC or not, these circular RNAs had an AUC of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.86-0.91) (only in HCC) and 0.85 (95%CI: 0.82-0.88) (not only in HCC). In conclusion, the results suggested that circular RNAs were acceptable biomarkers for detecting HCC, especially those circular RNAs existing in exosomes or serum/plasma.

Dataset Information

Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Accuracy Evaluation and Comparison of 14 Diagnostic Markers for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets