Weixing Liu1, Gui Chen1, Xin Gong1, Yingqi Wang1, Yaoming Zheng1, Xiao Liao1, Wenjing Liao1, Lijuan Song1, Jun Xu1, Xiaowen Zhang2. 1. State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, #151 Yanjiangxi Road, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, #151 Yanjiangxi Road, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. entxiaowen@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous individual studies have investigated the diagnostic value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), but the conclusions remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection in the diagnosis of NPC. METHODS: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019145532. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese data libraries (Wanfang, CNKI, and CBM) were searched up to January 2019. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood, negative likelihood, and diagnostic odds ratios were conducted in this meta-analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves evaluated the test-performance global summary. Publication bias was examined by Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies with 8382 NPC patients (NPC group) and 15,089 individuals without NPC (Control group) were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood (+ LR), negative likelihood (-LR), DOR and AUC of EBV-DNA in diagnosis of NPC were: 0.76 (95% CI 0.73-0.77), 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97), 14.66 (95% CI 9.97-21.55), 0.19 (95% CI 0.13-0.28), 84 (95% CI 50.45-139.88), 0.96 (SE: 0.001), and 0.55 (95% CI 0.54-0.57), 0.96 (95% CI 0.96-0.97), 12.91 (95% CI 9.55-17.45), 0.35 (95% CI 0.29-0.43), 39.57 (95% CI 26.44-59.23), 0.94 (SE: 0.002) for the EA-IgA, and 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.85), 0.89 (95% CI 0.88-0.89), 6.73 (95% CI5.38-8.43), 0.17 (95% CI 0.12-0.23), 43.03 (95% CI 31.51-58.76), 0.93 (SE: 0.007) for the VCA-IgA, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.88), 0.87 (95% CI 0.88-0.90), 7.55 (95% CI 5.79-9.87), 0.16 (95% CI 0.13-0.19), 50.95 (95% CI 34.35-75.57), 0.94 (SE: 0.008) for the EBNA1-IgA, and 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.71), 0.94 (95% CI 0.94-0.95), 9.84 (95% CI 8.40-11.54), 0.25 (95% CI 0.21-0.31), 40.59 (95% CI 32.09-51.35), 0.95 (SE: 0.005) for the Rta-IgG. The EBV-DNA had larger AUC compared with other EBV-based antibodies (P < 0.05), while the difference between EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EBV-DNA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection have high accuracy in early diagnosis NPC. In addition, EBV-DNA detection has the higher diagnosis accuracy in NPC. On the other hand, EA-IgA is suitable for the diagnosis but not NPC screening.
BACKGROUND: Numerous individual studies have investigated the diagnostic value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), but the conclusions remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection in the diagnosis of NPC. METHODS:PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019145532. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese data libraries (Wanfang, CNKI, and CBM) were searched up to January 2019. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood, negative likelihood, and diagnostic odds ratios were conducted in this meta-analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves evaluated the test-performance global summary. Publication bias was examined by Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies with 8382 NPCpatients (NPC group) and 15,089 individuals without NPC (Control group) were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood (+ LR), negative likelihood (-LR), DOR and AUC of EBV-DNA in diagnosis of NPC were: 0.76 (95% CI 0.73-0.77), 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97), 14.66 (95% CI 9.97-21.55), 0.19 (95% CI 0.13-0.28), 84 (95% CI 50.45-139.88), 0.96 (SE: 0.001), and 0.55 (95% CI 0.54-0.57), 0.96 (95% CI 0.96-0.97), 12.91 (95% CI 9.55-17.45), 0.35 (95% CI 0.29-0.43), 39.57 (95% CI 26.44-59.23), 0.94 (SE: 0.002) for the EA-IgA, and 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.85), 0.89 (95% CI 0.88-0.89), 6.73 (95% CI5.38-8.43), 0.17 (95% CI 0.12-0.23), 43.03 (95% CI 31.51-58.76), 0.93 (SE: 0.007) for the VCA-IgA, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.88), 0.87 (95% CI 0.88-0.90), 7.55 (95% CI 5.79-9.87), 0.16 (95% CI 0.13-0.19), 50.95 (95% CI 34.35-75.57), 0.94 (SE: 0.008) for the EBNA1-IgA, and 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.71), 0.94 (95% CI 0.94-0.95), 9.84 (95% CI 8.40-11.54), 0.25 (95% CI 0.21-0.31), 40.59 (95% CI 32.09-51.35), 0.95 (SE: 0.005) for the Rta-IgG. The EBV-DNA had larger AUC compared with other EBV-based antibodies (P < 0.05), while the difference between EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:EBV-DNA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection have high accuracy in early diagnosis NPC. In addition, EBV-DNA detection has the higher diagnosis accuracy in NPC. On the other hand, EA-IgA is suitable for the diagnosis but not NPC screening.
Authors: Matthew D F McInnes; David Moher; Brett D Thombs; Trevor A McGrath; Patrick M Bossuyt; Tammy Clifford; Jérémie F Cohen; Jonathan J Deeks; Constantine Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Harriet A Hunt; Christopher J Hyde; Daniël A Korevaar; Mariska M G Leeflang; Petra Macaskill; Johannes B Reitsma; Rachel Rodin; Anne W S Rutjes; Jean-Paul Salameh; Adrienne Stevens; Yemisi Takwoingi; Marcello Tonelli; Laura Weeks; Penny Whiting; Brian H Willis Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: K C Allen Chan; John K S Woo; Ann King; Benny C Y Zee; W K Jacky Lam; Stephen L Chan; Sam W I Chu; Constance Mak; Irene O L Tse; Samantha Y M Leung; Gloria Chan; Edwin P Hui; Brigette B Y Ma; Rossa W K Chiu; Sing-Fai Leung; Andrew C van Hasselt; Anthony T C Chan; Y M Dennis Lo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391