| Literature DB >> 33344230 |
Lei Peng1, Jinze Li1, Chunyang Meng1, Jinming Li2, Dandan Tang3, Fangxue Guan4, Peng Xu5, Tangqiang Wei1, Yunxiang Li1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of telomerase activity (TA) for bladder cancer (BC) by meta-analysis.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; bladder cancer; diagnosis; meta-analysis; telomerase activity
Year: 2020 PMID: 33344230 PMCID: PMC7744937 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.570127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Flow diagram depicting the selection process for all articles found in literature.
Characteristics of the included studies in the meta-analysis.
| NO. | Author | Year | Region | Experiment | Control | Study design | Study population | TP | FP | FN | TN | Score of quality | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bhuiyan et al. ( | 2003 | USA | 65 | 162 | Prospective | Multicenter | 50 | 4 | 15 | 158 | 11 | |
| 2 | Bravaccini et al. ( | 2007 | Italy | 68 | 144 | Prospective | Multicenter | 59 | 49 | 9 | 95 | 10 | |
| 3 | Cassel et al. ( | 2001 | Israel | 44 | 29 | Retrospective | Single center | 37 | 7 | 7 | 22 | 11 | |
| 4 | Dettlaff et al. ( | 2005 | Poland | 52 | 13 | Prospective | Single center | 47 | 0 | 5 | 13 | 11 | |
| 5 | Dong et al. ( | 1998 | Korea | 23 | 23 | Prospective | Single center | 22 | 1 | 1 | 22 | 9 | |
| 6 | Eissa et al. ( | 2007 | Egypt | 200 | 115 | Prospective | Single center | 185 | 13 | 15 | 102 | 10 | |
| 7 | Guido et al. ( | 1997 | USA | 37 | 13 | Prospective | Multicenter | 13 | 0 | 24 | 13 | 11 | |
| 8 | Halling et al. ( | 2002 | USA | 70 | 80 | Prospective | Single center | 32 | 7 | 38 | 73 | 10 | |
| 9 | Kavaler et al. ( | 1998 | USA | 104 | 82 | Prospective | Single center | 88 | 16 | 16 | 66 | 10 | |
| 10 | Kinoshita et al. ( | 1997 | Japan | 42 | 12 | Prospective | Single center | 23 | 0 | 19 | 12 | 9 | |
| 11 | Komiya et al. ( | 2009 | Japan | 75 | 6 | Prospective | Single center | 49 | 1 | 26 | 5 | 10 | |
| 12 | Landman et al. ( | 1998 | USA | 47 | 30 | Prospective | Single center | 38 | 6 | 9 | 24 | 11 | |
| 13 | Okumura et al. ( | 2004 | Japan | 37 | 5 | Prospective | Multicenter | 23 | 1 | 14 | 4 | 10 | |
| 14 | Ramakuma et al. ( | 1999 | UK | 57 | 139 | Prospective | Single center | 40 | 2 | 17 | 137 | 12 | |
| 15 | Roberta et al. ( | 2001 | Italy | 56 | 50 | Retrospective | Single center | 42 | 9 | 14 | 41 | 10 | |
| 16 | Saad et al. ( | 2002 | UK | 37 | 68 | Prospective | Single center | 26 | 5 | 5 | 63 | 10 | |
| 17 | Sanchini et al. ( | 2005 | Italy | 134 | 84 | Prospective | Multicenter | 121 | 10 | 13 | 74 | 11 | |
| 18 | Siracusano et al. ( | 2005 | Italy | 153 | 52 | Retrospective | Single center | 139 | 11 | 14 | 41 | 9 | |
| 19 | Stefania et al. ( | 2000 | Italy | 33 | 20 | Prospective | Single center | 27 | 2 | 6 | 18 | 10 | |
| 20 | Steffen et al. ( | 2005 | Germany | 94 | 160 | Prospective | Single center | 70 | 24 | 24 | 136 | 10 | |
| 21 | Yokota et al. ( | 1998 | Japan | 29 | 20 | Prospective | Multicenter | 25 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 11 | |
| 22 | Yoshida et al. ( | 1997 | UK | 26 | 83 | Prospective | Single center | 16 | 3 | 10 | 80 | 12 | |
Summary estimated of diagnostic performance of telomerase activity for bladder cancer.
| Category | SEN1 (95%CI) | SPE2 (95%CI) | PLR3 (95%CI) | NLR4 (95%CI) | DOR5 (95%CI) | AUC6 (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 0.79(0.65–0.86 | 0.98(0.94–0.99) | 8.91(5.91–13.43) | 0.24(0.15–0.37) | 37.90(23.32–61.59) | 0.92(0.90–0.94) |
1SEN, Sensitivity; 2SPE, Specificity; 3PLR, Positive Likelihood Ratios; 4NLR, Negative Likelihood Ratios; 5DOR, Diagnostic Odds Ratios; 6AUC, Area under the curve.
Figure 2Forest plot of pooled sensitivity and specificity of telomerase activity for bladder cancer.
Figure 3The SROC curve of telomerase activity for bladder cancer.
Figure 4Fagan diagram evaluating the overall diagnostic value of telomerase activity for bladder cancer.
Figure 5Forest plot depicting the pooled stages and grades for telomerase activity for bladder cancer (A). Forest plot for different stages (B); Forest plot for different grades.
Figure 6Deek’s funnel plot to evaluate the publication bias.
Figure 7Meta regression and subgroup analysis.