| Literature DB >> 31534962 |
Chengdi Wang1, Yuting Jiang2, Qian Lei3, Yangping Wu4, Jun Shao1, Dan Pu5, Weimin Li1.
Abstract
Emerging evidence demonstrated that circular RNAs (circRNAs) were dysregulated in lung cancer, indicating that circRNAs might serve as novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for lung cancer. However, the clinical value of circRNAs on lung cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of circRNAs in the diagnosis and prognosis for lung cancer in China. 2122 Chinese individuals were enrolled in this investigation for assessment of diagnostic value and examination of prognostic analysis. In the diagnostic analysis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC of the sROC curve with their 95% CIs were 0.80 (95%CI: 0.74-0.84), 0.80 (95%CI: 0.73-0.86), 3.97 (95%CI: 2.80-5.62) and 0.26 (95%CI: 0.19-0.34), 15.51 (95%CI: 8.76-24.47), and 0.85 (95%CI: 0.82-0.88), respectively. As for the prognostic power of circRNAs, lung cancer patients with higher expression levels of circRNAs tend to possess lower overall survival with the overall pooled HR (1.70, 95%CI: 1.26-2.29). Furthermore, in stratified analysis, upregulated and downregulated circRNAs were manifested to exert significant effects on prognosis with HR values of 2.17 (95%CI: 1.74-2.72) and 0.52 (95%CI: 0.34-0.80). This study validates that circRNAs are promising diagnostic and predictive biomarkers for lung cancer patients in China.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31534962 PMCID: PMC6732606 DOI: 10.1155/2019/8023541
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study selection process. Totally, 1798 were identified through database or by searching manually. And 24 articles were enrolled in the final analysis including 5 diagnostic studies and 19 prognostic studies.
Characteristics and quality assessment of studies included in diagnosis meta-analysis.
| First Author | Published Year | Country | Ethnicity | Cancer type | CircRNA type | Name of the host gene | Expression | Specimen source | No. of patients | No. of control | Cutoff value | AUC | TP | FP | FN | TN | Sensitivity | Specificity | Detection method | QUADAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li JP | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | Hsa_circ_0079530 | ACP6 | U | Tissue | 92 | 92 | 1.9 | 0.756 | 70 | 26 | 22 | 66 | 76.29% | 72.1% | qRT-PCR | 5 |
| Zhang YN | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | CircRNA-FOXO3 | FOXO3 | D | Tissue | 45 | 45 | NA | 0.782 | 36 | 12 | 9 | 33 | 80.0% | 73.3% | qRT-PCR | 5 |
| Zhang SY | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | Hsa_circ_0014130 | / | U | Tissue | 46 | 46 | 0.573 | 0.878 | 40 | 7 | 6 | 39 | 87% | 84.8% | qRT-PCR | 4 |
| Zhu XL | 2017 | China | Asian | LAC | Hsa_circ_0013958 | / | U | Tissue | 49 | 49 | 0.00101 | 0.815 | 37 | 10 | 12 | 39 | 75.5% | 79.6% | qRT-PCR | 5 |
| Zong L | 2018 | China | Asian | LAC | Hsa_circ_102231 | / | U | Tissue | 57 | 57 | NA | 0.897 | 46 | 6 | 11 | 51 | 81.2% | 88.7% | qRT-PCR | 5 |
NSCLC, nonsmall cell lung cancer; LAC, lung adenocarcinoma; U, upregulated expression; D, downregulated expression; AUC, area under the curve; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; qRT-PCR, real-time polymerase chain reaction; QUADAS, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy studies.
Clinical characteristics and quality evaluation of articles enrolled in the prognosis analysis.
| First Author | Published Year | Country | Ethnicity | Cancer type | CircRNA type | Name of the host gene | Expression | Specimen source | No. of patients | No. of control | Cutoff value | Follow-up time (month) | Treatment | OS (HR) | OS (LL) | OS (UL) | NOS Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li YS | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | hsa_circ_0016760 | SNAP47 | U | Tissue | 45 | 38 | mean | 60 | Surgery | 1.91 | 1.119 | 3.259 | 8 |
| Qi Y | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | hsa_circ_0007534 | DDX42 | U | Tissue | 56 | 42 | mean | 60 | Surgery | 1.969 | 1.177 | 3.293 | 8 |
| Qiu MT | 2018 | China | Asian | LAC | circ-PRKCI | PRKCI | U | Tissue | 55 | 34 | mean | 80 | Surgery | 2.664 | 1.327 | 5.347 | 8 |
| Qin S | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | circ-PVT1 | PVT1 | U | Tissue | 43 | 47 | median | 60 | Surgery | 1.61 | 0.72 | 3.60 | 8 |
| Qiu BQ | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | circ-FGFR3 | FGFR3 | U | Tissue | 34 | 29 | mean | 80 | Surgery | 1.61 | 0.63 | 4.13 | 9 |
| Su CY | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | ciRS-7 | CDR1as | U | Tissue | 77 | 51 | mean | 60 | Surgery | 1.705 | 1.02 | 2.86 | 9 |
| Wang J | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | hsa_circ_0067934 | PRKCI | U | Tissue | 79 | 80 | median | 60 | Surgery | 3.198 | 1.293 | 5.673 | 9 |
| Zhang XF | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | ciRS-7 | CDR1as | U | Tissue | 41 | 19 | median | 70 | Surgery | 6.132 | 2.923 | 7.556 | 8 |
| Zou QG | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | hsa_circ_0067934 | PRKCI | U | Tissue | 41 | 38 | median | 60 | Surgery | 2.133 | 1.677 | 3.251 | 8 |
| Ding LC | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | hsa_circ_001569 | / | U | Tissue | 29 | 27 | mean | 50 | Surgery | 2.02 | 0.963 | 4.233 | 9 |
| Han JQ | 2018 | China | Asian | LC | circ-BANP | BANP | U | Tissue | 28 | 31 | median | 60 | Surgery | 1.196 | 0.323 | 4.496 | 8 |
| Liu W | 2018 | China | Asian | LC | hsa_circ_103809 | / | U | Tissue | 22 | 22 | mean | 80 | Surgery | 1.08 | 0.21 | 5.60 | 6 |
| Qu DH | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | hsa_circ_0020123 | PDZD8 | U | Tissue | 40 | 40 | median | 60 | Surgery | 1.747 | 0.52 | 5.867 | 8 |
| Yan B | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | ciRS-7 | CDR1as | U | Tissue | 66 | 66 | median | 90 | Surgery | 1.575 | 1.016 | 2.440 | 8 |
| Yu WJ | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | hsa_circ_0003998 | ARFGEF2 | U | Tissue | 32 | 28 | mean | 40 | Surgery | 1.82 | 0.76 | 4.38 | 7 |
| Zhao FC | 2018 | China | Asian | LC | circ-FADS2 | FADS2 | U | Tissue | 22 | 21 | median | 50 | Surgery | 3.46 | 1.15 | 10.38 | 7 |
| Liu TM | 2018 | China | Asian | NSCLC | hsa_circ_0001649 | SHPRH | D | Tissue | 22 | 31 | mean | 60 | Surgery | 0.471 | 0.238 | 0.934 | 8 |
| Yang L | 2018 | China | Asian | LC | hsa_circ_0046264 | P4HB | D | Tissue | 55 | 44 | median | 16 | Surgery | 0.529 | 0.272 | 1.031 | 9 |
| Chen DS | 2018 | China | Asian | LC | hsa_circ_100395 | / | D | Tissue | 35 | 34 | mean | 150 | Surgery | 0.61 | 0.25 | 1.49 | 7 |
NSCLC, nonsmall cell lung cancer; LAC, lung adenocarcinoma; LC, lung cancer; U, upregulated expression; D, downregulated expression; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Figure 2Forest plots of diagnostic accuracy index of circRNAs in lung cancer. (a) Sensitivity of circRNAs in diagnosis of lung cancer. (b) Specificity of circRNAs in diagnosis of lung cancer. (c) Positive likelihood ratio of circRNAs in diagnosis of lung cancer. (d) Negative likelihood ratio of circRNAs in diagnosis of lung cancer.
Figure 3Overall performance of circRNAs in diagnosis of lung cancer. (a) Diagnostic odds ratio of circRNAs in diagnosis of lung cancer. (b) Summary receiver operator characteristic curve of circRNAs in diagnosis of lung cancer.
Figure 4Fagan's nomogram estimating the overall value of circRNAs in cancer detection.
The results of the diagnostic analysis.
| First author | Sensitivity | Specificity | LR+ (95%CI) | LR- (95%CI) | DOR | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li JP | 0.76 (0.66-0.84) | 0.72 (0.68-0.84) | 2.69 (1.91-3.80) | 0.33 (0.23-0.49) | 8.08 (4.18-15.63) | |
| Zhang YN | 0.80 (0.65-0.90) | 0.73 (0.58-0.85) | 3.00 (1.81-4.98) | 0.27 (0.15-0.50) | 11.00 (4.11-29.45) | |
| Zhang SY | 0.87 (0.74-0.95) | 0.85 (0.71-0.94) | 5.71 (2.86-11.41) | 0.15 (0.07-0.33) | 37.14 (11.46-120.42) | |
| Zhu XL | 0.76 (0.61-0.87) | 0.80 (0.66-0.90) | 3.70 (2.08-6.58) | 0.31 (0.18-0.51) | 12.02 (4.64-31.16) | |
| Zong L | 0.81( 0.68-0.90) | 0.89 (0.78-0.96) | 7.67 (3.56-16.52) | 0.22 (0.13-0.37) | 35.55 (12.17-103.79) | |
| Pooled | 0.80 (0.74-0.84) | 0.80 (0.73-0.86) | 3.97 (2.80-5.62) | 0.26 (0.19-0.34) | 15.51 (8.76-27.47) | 0.85 (0.82-0.88) |
|
| 0 | 54.09% | 17.25% | 12.03% | 93.33% |
LR+: positive likelihood ratios; LR–, negative likelihood ratios; DOR, diagnostic odds ratios; AUC, area under curve; I2, inconsistency index.
Figure 5Forest plots of the overall prognostic performance of circRNAs.
The results of the prognostic subgroup analysis.
| Subgroup | No. of studies | HR | LL | UL | P | I2 | P for heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 1544 | 1.70 | 1.26 | 2.29 | 0.001 | 72.8% | < 0.001 |
| Upregulated | 1323 | 2.17 | 1.74 | 2.72 | < 0.001 | 43.2% | 0.034 |
| Downregulated | 221 | 0.52 | 0.34 | 0.80 | 0.002 | 0 | < 0.001 |
| Analysis methods | |||||||
| Multivariate analysis | 980 | 1.79 | 1.17 | 2.73 | 0.007 | 84.8% | < 0.001 |
| Univariate analysis | 564 | 1.56 | 1.13 | 2.16 | 0.007 | 0 | 0.510 |
| Follow-up time | |||||||
| ≥ 5 years | 1280 | 1.76 | 1.28 | 2.43 | 0.001 | 72.5% | < 0.001 |
| < 5 years | 258 | 1.52 | 0.67 | 3.47 | 0.319 | 74.9% | 0.009 |
HR, hazard ratio; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit.
Figure 6Meta-analysis of subtotal HRs based on (a) upregulated and downregulated circRNAs, (b) analysis methods, and (c) follow-up time.
Figure 7Funnel plots of publication bias. (a) Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test for diagnostic studies. (b) Begg's funnel plot for prognostic tests. (c) Egger's funnel plot for prognostic tests.
Figure 8Sensitivity analyses for prognostic analysis.