| Literature DB >> 31089400 |
Zong-Sheng Huang1, Xian-Wen Guo1, Guo Zhang1, Lie-Xin Liang1, Bing Nong1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of miR-200c in gastric cancer remains controversial. This study is aimed at clarifying the diagnostic and prognostic value of miR-200c in gastric cancer through a meta-analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31089400 PMCID: PMC6476052 DOI: 10.1155/2019/8949618
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
Figure 1Flow chart of study selection.
Characteristics of the studies that related to the diagnosis of gastric cancer.
| Study | Country/year | Design | Sample type | Tumor/control | Stage | Cut-off | Test method | Sensitivity | Specificity | QUADAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tseng CW | China/2011 | R | Tissue | 22/22 | I-IV | 2670.5 | Microarray | 54.5% | 54.5% | 10 |
| Valladares-Ayerbes | Spain/2012 | R | Blood | 52/15 | I-IV | 62.4 | qRT-PCR | 65.4% | 100% | 13 |
| Lin GY | China/2013 | R | Blood | 50/50 | I-IV | 0.12 | qRT-PCR | 67.5% | 78.5% | 11 |
| Tang JL | China/2015 | R | Blood | 47/50 | I-IV | 1.285 | qRT-PCR | 97.0% | 54.0% | 12 |
| Keller A | Germany/2014 | R | Tissue | 11/93 | I-IV | 101.04 | Microarray | 72.7% | 55.9% | 12 |
| Sierzega M | Poland/2017 | R | Tissue | 20/20 | I-IV | 0.342 | Microarray | 60.0% | 45.0% | 13 |
R: retrospective; QUADAS: quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.
Characteristics of the studies that related to the prognosis of gastric cancer.
| Study | Country/year | Design | Sample | Number | Stage | Cut-off | Test method | Outcome | HR | 95% CI | QUADAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valladares-Ayerbes | Spain/2012 | R | Blood | 52 | I-IV | 104.8 | qRT-PCR | OS | 2.24 | 1.091-4.614 | 13 |
| PFS | 2.27 | 1.093-4.712 | |||||||||
| Tang HL | China/2013 | R | Tissue | 126 | I-IV | 2.00 | qRT-PCR | OS | 2.29 | 1.38-3.81 | 11 |
| DFS | 1.83 | 1.15-2.92 | |||||||||
| Blanco-Calvo | Spain 2014 | R | Blood | 42 | I-IV | Median | qRT-PCR | OS | 2.24 | 1.091-4.614 | 12 |
| PFS | 2.27 | 1.093-4.712 | |||||||||
| Song FJ | China/2014 | R | Blood | 385 | I-IV | Median | qRT-PCR | OS | 1.32 | 0.82-2.12 | 12 |
| PFS | 1.06 | 0.70-1.60 | |||||||||
| Zhang HP | China/2015 | R | Blood | 98 | I-IV | Median | qRT-PCR | OS | 4.01 | 2.67-10.02 | 11 |
| Zhou X | China/2015 | R | Tissue | 63 | IIB-IV | Median | qRT-PCR | DFS | 1.70 | 1.21-2.38 | 12 |
| Zhang L | China/2017 | R | Tissue | 169 | I-IV | Median | qRT-PCR | DFS | 1.58 | 0.72–3.44 | 13 |
R: retrospective; QUADAS: quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies; OS: overall survival; PFS: progression-free survival; DFS: disease-free survival.
Figure 2Sensitivity and specificity plotted graph for the diagnostic value of miR-200c in gastric cancer.
Figure 3SROC curve plotted graph for the diagnostic value of miR-200c in gastric cancer.
Figure 4Publication bias plotted graph by Begg's test.
Subgroup analysis of the diagnostic value of miR-200c in gastric cancer.
| Subgroup | Sensitivity | P1 | Specificity | P2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample type | Blood | 0.65 (0.41-0.88) | 0.19 | 0.71 (0.48-0.93) | 0.78 |
| Tissue | 0.81 (0.64-0.97) | 0.61 (0.38-0.83) | |||
| Test method | qRT-PCR | 0.65 (0.41-0.88) | 0.19 | 0.71 (0.48-0.93) | 0.78 |
| Microarray | 0.81 (0.64-0.97) | 0.61 (0.38-0.83) | |||
| Ethnicity | Asian | 0.80 (0.63-0.97) | 0.58 | 0.69 (0.44-0.93) | 0.99 |
| Caucasian | 0.66 (0.42-0.90) | 0.64 (0.42-0.86) |
Figure 5Meta-analysis of the miR-200a with OS in gastric cancer patients.
Figure 6Meta-analysis of the miR-200a with PFS and DFS in gastric cancer patients.
Figure 7Publication bias plotted graph by Begg's test.