BACKGROUND: miR-141 has gradually demonstrated its value in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic parameters in previous studies differ. A systematic review was conducted to explore the diagnostic value of miR-141 in prostate cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature in the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases was performed. The included 7 studies assessed the diagnostic value of miR-141 in patients with prostate cancer up to October 31, 2019. We used meta-disc version 1.4 and STATA software version 12.0 to analyze the data. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.75) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.80), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 2.88 (95% CI 1.40-5.93), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.38 (95% CI 0.20-0.71). Further, we note that the pooled diagnostic odds ratio of miR-141 for prostate cancer was 9.94 (95% CI: 2.55-38.80). The summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86). The results of meta-regression suggested that heterogeneity was mainly derived from patient age. The results of the Fagan nomogram showed that it was increased significantly by testing miR-141 for diagnosing prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that miR-141 has a high diagnostic value for prostate cancer. In the future, large-scale prospective studies are needed to verify and evaluate this result.
BACKGROUND:miR-141 has gradually demonstrated its value in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic parameters in previous studies differ. A systematic review was conducted to explore the diagnostic value of miR-141 in prostate cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature in the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases was performed. The included 7 studies assessed the diagnostic value of miR-141 in patients with prostate cancer up to October 31, 2019. We used meta-disc version 1.4 and STATA software version 12.0 to analyze the data. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.75) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.80), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 2.88 (95% CI 1.40-5.93), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.38 (95% CI 0.20-0.71). Further, we note that the pooled diagnostic odds ratio of miR-141 for prostate cancer was 9.94 (95% CI: 2.55-38.80). The summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86). The results of meta-regression suggested that heterogeneity was mainly derived from patient age. The results of the Fagan nomogram showed that it was increased significantly by testing miR-141 for diagnosing prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that miR-141 has a high diagnostic value for prostate cancer. In the future, large-scale prospective studies are needed to verify and evaluate this result.