Mingxia Ding1, Yi Li2, Haifeng Wang1, Yongchang Lv1, Jianwei Liang1, Jiansong Wang1, Chong Li3. 1. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University Kunming 650101, China. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Peking University Third Hospital Beijing 100083, China. 3. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University Kunming 650101, China ; CAS Key Laboratory of Infection and Immunity, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100101, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer (BC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide. The expression levels of microRNAs (miRNAs) in urine samples of BC patients have been demonstrated to be different from healthy people. Several studies focusing on the diagnostic value of urinary miRNAs for BC detection have been reported. The aim of this meta-analysis was to access the overall diagnostic accuracy comprehensively and quantitatively. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI were searched without language restrictions for studies about the diagnostic value of miRNAs for BC. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated using the random effects model. The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was also generated and the area under the curve (AUC) was also reckoned to assess the diagnosis accuracy. Besides, Chi-square test and I(2) test were used to assess the heterogeneity between studies. Publication bias was evaluated by the Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 1,128 BC patients and 1,057 matched controls. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR of urinary miRNAs for the diagnosis of BC were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67-0.75), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70-0.79), 2.8 (95% CI: 2.3-3.4), 0.39 (95% CI: 0.33-0.46) and 7 (95% CI: 5-10), respectively. The area under the SROC curve was 0.79. Subgroup analyses suggested that the ethnicity and miRNA profiling had an obvious influence on the diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: The current analysis suggested that urinary miRNA panels may be a promising noninvasive biomarker in the diagnosis of BC.
BACKGROUND:Bladder cancer (BC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide. The expression levels of microRNAs (miRNAs) in urine samples of BC patients have been demonstrated to be different from healthy people. Several studies focusing on the diagnostic value of urinary miRNAs for BC detection have been reported. The aim of this meta-analysis was to access the overall diagnostic accuracy comprehensively and quantitatively. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI were searched without language restrictions for studies about the diagnostic value of miRNAs for BC. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated using the random effects model. The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was also generated and the area under the curve (AUC) was also reckoned to assess the diagnosis accuracy. Besides, Chi-square test and I(2) test were used to assess the heterogeneity between studies. Publication bias was evaluated by the Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 1,128 BC patients and 1,057 matched controls. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR of urinary miRNAs for the diagnosis of BC were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67-0.75), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70-0.79), 2.8 (95% CI: 2.3-3.4), 0.39 (95% CI: 0.33-0.46) and 7 (95% CI: 5-10), respectively. The area under the SROC curve was 0.79. Subgroup analyses suggested that the ethnicity and miRNA profiling had an obvious influence on the diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: The current analysis suggested that urinary miRNA panels may be a promising noninvasive biomarker in the diagnosis of BC.
Authors: Patricia Puerta-Gil; Rodrigo García-Baquero; Angela Y Jia; Sara Ocaña; Miguel Alvarez-Múgica; Jose L Alvarez-Ossorio; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Fernando Cava; Marta Sánchez-Carbayo Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: James W F Catto; Saiful Miah; Helen C Owen; Helen Bryant; Katie Myers; Ewa Dudziec; Stéphane Larré; Marta Milo; Ishtiaq Rehman; Derek J Rosario; Erica Di Martino; Margaret A Knowles; Mark Meuth; Adrian L Harris; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Lars Dyrskjøt; Marie S Ostenfeld; Jesper B Bramsen; Asli N Silahtaroglu; Philippe Lamy; Ramshanker Ramanathan; Niels Fristrup; Jens L Jensen; Claus L Andersen; Karsten Zieger; Sakari Kauppinen; Benedicte P Ulhøi; Jørgen Kjems; Michael Borre; Torben F Orntoft Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Brigitte Mahnert; Stephan Tauber; Martin Kriegmair; Dorothea Nagel; Stefan Holdenrieder; Karin Hofmann; Wolfgang Reiter; Nikolaus Schmeller; Petra Stieber Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Barthold Ph Schrier; Maarten P Hollander; Bas W G van Rhijn; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; J Alfred Witjes Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Luca Falzone; Saverio Candido; Rossella Salemi; Maria S Basile; Aurora Scalisi; James A McCubrey; Francesco Torino; Salvatore S Signorelli; Maurizio Montella; Massimo Libra Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-11-08
Authors: Kati Erdmann; Karsten Salomo; Anna Klimova; Ulrike Heberling; Andrea Lohse-Fischer; Romy Fuehrer; Christian Thomas; Ingo Roeder; Michael Froehner; Manfred P Wirth; Susanne Fuessel Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 5.923