Dataset Information

Salivary biomarkers in breast cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Salivary 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Our 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.

Conclusion

Saliva, as a noninvasive biomarker, has the potential to accurately differentiate breast cancer patients from healthy controls.

SUBMITTER: Koopaie M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9249990 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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:ObjectivesUltrasound (US) technology has recently made advances that have led to the development of modalities including elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. The use of different US modalities in combination may increase the accuracy of PCa diagnosis. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric ultrasound (mpUS) in the PCa diagnosis.MethodsThrough September 2023, we searched through Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov, and Google Scholar for relevant studies. We used standard methods recommended for meta-analyses of diagnostic evaluation. We plot the SROC curve, which stands for summary receiver operating characteristic. To determine how confounding factors affected the results, meta-regression analysis was used.ResultsFinally, 1004 patients from 8 studies that were included in this research were examined. The diagnostic odds ratio for PCa was 20 (95% confidence interval (CI), 8-49) and the pooled estimates of mpUS for diagnosis were as follows: sensitivity, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93); specificity, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.59-0.83); positive predictive value, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.87); and negative predictive value, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93). The area under the SROC curve was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92). There was a significant heterogeneity among the studies (p < 0.01). According to meta-regression, both the sensitivity and specificity of mpUS in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) were inferior to any PCa.ConclusionThe diagnostic accuracy of mpUS in the diagnosis of PCa is moderate, but the accuracy in the diagnosis of csPCa is significantly lower than any PCa. More relevant research is needed in the future.Critical relevance statementThis study provides urologists and sonographers with useful data by summarizing the accuracy of multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer.Key points• Recent studies focused on the role of multiparametric ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. • This meta-analysis revealed that multiparametric ultrasound has moderate diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer. • The diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric ultrasound in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer is significantly lower than any prostate cancer.