Hongtao Liu1,2, Yuzhen Gao3, Somayeh Vafaei4, Xiao Gu2,5, Xiaoli Zhong3,5. 1. Department of Graduate School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian City, China. 2. Department of Urology, Northern Jiangsu Hospital, Yangzhou University Clinical College, Yangzhou, China. 3. Department of Molecular Diagnosis, Northern Jiangsu Hospital, Yangzhou University Clinical College, Yangzhou, China. 4. Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 5. Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou City, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: By virtue of largely disparate clinical outcomes of prostate cancer (PCA), there is a pressing need to search for useful biomarkers for PCA prognosis. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a promising biomarker for detecting, monitoring, and predicting survival of prostate cancer (PCA). However, the utility of total cfDNA quantitation in PCA in clinical setting remains elusive. Here, we performed a thorough meta-analysis to assess the prognostic value of cfDNA concentration for patients with PCA. In addition, we tested the possibility of the combination of PSA and cfDNA test results to improve the prediction power in PCA prognosis. METHOD AND MATERIALS: More than six databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, PMC, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched. Results yielded all eligible articles from the date of inception to June 30, 2020. Continuous, diagnostic, and prognostic variables in cfDNA in PCA were included in the meta-analysis by STATA. RESULTS: A total of 23 articles were enrolled in our meta-analysis: 69.6% (16/23) were related to diagnosis, and 56.5% (13/23) were related to prognosis. The pooled concentration of cfDNA in PCA patients was significantly higher than in the control group (SMD = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.53, 1.26), mirroring results for the prostate-specific antigen (PSA). For the detection test variables, the SROC with 95%CI was 0.87 (0.84-0.90) for cfDNA concentration. In terms of prognostic variables, the concentrations of cfDNA were significantly related with progression-free survival (PFS, logHR = 0.84 (95%CI0.39, 1.28) and overall survival [OS, log HR = 0.60 (95%CI0.29, 0.90)]. Lastly, the test showed no significant publication bias in the present meta-analysis, excluding the diagnostic meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The concentration of cell-free DNA is high in the prostate cancer patients. The present study substantiates the prognostic value of the cfDNA concentration. High concentration cfDNA correlates with poor disease outcome of CRPC. The study cohort with large sample size is needed to evaluate the prognosis value of cfDNA in the future. We also emphasized that combination of PSA and cf DNA quantitation is important in future large individual meta study.
OBJECTIVE: By virtue of largely disparate clinical outcomes of prostate cancer (PCA), there is a pressing need to search for useful biomarkers for PCA prognosis. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a promising biomarker for detecting, monitoring, and predicting survival of prostate cancer (PCA). However, the utility of total cfDNA quantitation in PCA in clinical setting remains elusive. Here, we performed a thorough meta-analysis to assess the prognostic value of cfDNA concentration for patients with PCA. In addition, we tested the possibility of the combination of PSA and cfDNA test results to improve the prediction power in PCA prognosis. METHOD AND MATERIALS: More than six databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, PMC, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched. Results yielded all eligible articles from the date of inception to June 30, 2020. Continuous, diagnostic, and prognostic variables in cfDNA in PCA were included in the meta-analysis by STATA. RESULTS: A total of 23 articles were enrolled in our meta-analysis: 69.6% (16/23) were related to diagnosis, and 56.5% (13/23) were related to prognosis. The pooled concentration of cfDNA in PCA patients was significantly higher than in the control group (SMD = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.53, 1.26), mirroring results for the prostate-specific antigen (PSA). For the detection test variables, the SROC with 95%CI was 0.87 (0.84-0.90) for cfDNA concentration. In terms of prognostic variables, the concentrations of cfDNA were significantly related with progression-free survival (PFS, logHR = 0.84 (95%CI0.39, 1.28) and overall survival [OS, log HR = 0.60 (95%CI0.29, 0.90)]. Lastly, the test showed no significant publication bias in the present meta-analysis, excluding the diagnostic meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The concentration of cell-free DNA is high in the prostate cancer patients. The present study substantiates the prognostic value of the cfDNA concentration. High concentration cfDNA correlates with poor disease outcome of CRPC. The study cohort with large sample size is needed to evaluate the prognosis value of cfDNA in the future. We also emphasized that combination of PSA and cf DNA quantitation is important in future large individual meta study.
Authors: Niven Mehra; Maarten Penning; Jolanda Maas; Nancy van Daal; Rachel H Giles; Emile E Voest Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Matti Annala; Gillian Vandekerkhove; Daniel Khalaf; Sinja Taavitsainen; Kevin Beja; Evan W Warner; Katherine Sunderland; Christian Kollmannsberger; Bernhard J Eigl; Daygen Finch; Conrad D Oja; Joanna Vergidis; Muhammad Zulfiqar; Arun A Azad; Matti Nykter; Martin E Gleave; Alexander W Wyatt; Kim N Chi Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Klaus Jung; Carsten Stephan; Michaela Lewandowski; Silke Klotzek; Monika Jung; Glen Kristiansen; Michael Lein; Stefan A Loening; Dietmar Schnorr Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2004-03-18 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Daniel Fernandez-Garcia; Allison Hills; Karen Page; Robert K Hastings; Bradley Toghill; Kate S Goddard; Charlotte Ion; Olivia Ogle; Anna Rita Boydell; Kelly Gleason; Mark Rutherford; Adrian Lim; David S Guttery; R Charles Coombes; Jacqueline A Shaw Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 6.466