Jianxiong Cui1. 1. Department of Oncology, Sichuan Provincial Crops Hospital of Chinese People's Armed Police Forces Leshan 614000, Sichuan, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer is a main public health problem all over the world with its high morbidity and mortality. MicroRNA-16 (miRNA-16, miR-16) family members have been considered as potential biomarkers in cancer diagnosis in several previous studies, but their results were inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: The present meta-analysis was conducted to assess the diagnostic efficacy of miR-16 family for cancer systematically. METHODS: Multiple search strategies and random-effects model were used. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and other parameters were calculated. Totally, 1,259 cancer patients and 855 controls from 16 articles were enrolled in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: The pooled results for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the curve (AUC) were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73-0.85), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70-0.84), 3.5 (95% CI: 2.5-5.0), 0.26 (95% CI: 0.19-0.36), 14 (95% CI: 8-25) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88), respectively. Our subgroup analyses indicated miR-16 family assay was more appropriate in Asian populations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that miR-16 family members have a relatively high value as promising biomarkers in diagnosing cancers. Nevertheless, the clinical application of miR-16 family profiling for cancers diagnosis still needs further large-scale studies and additional improvements of substantiation.
BACKGROUND:Cancer is a main public health problem all over the world with its high morbidity and mortality. MicroRNA-16 (miRNA-16, miR-16) family members have been considered as potential biomarkers in cancer diagnosis in several previous studies, but their results were inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: The present meta-analysis was conducted to assess the diagnostic efficacy of miR-16 family for cancer systematically. METHODS: Multiple search strategies and random-effects model were used. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and other parameters were calculated. Totally, 1,259 cancerpatients and 855 controls from 16 articles were enrolled in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: The pooled results for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the curve (AUC) were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73-0.85), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70-0.84), 3.5 (95% CI: 2.5-5.0), 0.26 (95% CI: 0.19-0.36), 14 (95% CI: 8-25) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88), respectively. Our subgroup analyses indicated miR-16 family assay was more appropriate in Asian populations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that miR-16 family members have a relatively high value as promising biomarkers in diagnosing cancers. Nevertheless, the clinical application of miR-16 family profiling for cancers diagnosis still needs further large-scale studies and additional improvements of substantiation.
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Fabio Levi; Jacques Ferlay; Carlotta Galeone; Franca Lucchini; Eva Negri; Peter Boyle; Carlo La Vecchia Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: S Miah; E Dudziec; R M Drayton; A R Zlotta; S L Morgan; D J Rosario; F C Hamdy; J W F Catto Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Xiaodan Meng; Simon A Joosse; Volkmar Müller; Fabian Trillsch; Karin Milde-Langosch; Sven Mahner; Maria Geffken; Klaus Pantel; Heidi Schwarzenbach Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Saray Duran-Sanchon; Elena Vila-Navarro; Maria Marcuello; Juan José Lozano; Jenifer Muñoz; Joaquín Cubiella; Maria Soledad Diez; Luis Bujanda; Angel Lanas; Rodrigo Jover; Vicent Hernández; Enrique Quintero; Marta Herreros-Villanueva; Ana Carmen Martín; Rosa Pérez-Palacios; Rocio Arroyo; Antoni Castells; Meritxell Gironella Journal: Biomolecules Date: 2019-12-20
Authors: Aloma L D'Souza; John R Chevillet; Pejman Ghanouni; Xinrui Yan; Muneesh Tewari; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240