| Literature DB >> 33997007 |
Amir Hossein Aalami1, Hossein Abdeahad2, Mohammad Mesgari3, Thozhukat Sathyapalan4, Amirhossein Sahebkar5,6,7.
Abstract
AIMS: Bladder cancer (BCa) is a common cancer in North America and Europe that carries considerable morbidity and mortality. A reliable biomarker for early detection of the bladder is crucial for improving the prognosis of BCA. In this meta-analysis, we examine the diagnostic role of the angiogenin (ANG) protein in patients' urine with bladder neoplasm.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33997007 PMCID: PMC8099530 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5557309
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flow chart of the study selection.
Comparison of different studies on urinary angiogenin (ANG) as a diagnostic biomarker in bladder cancer.
| Author/year | Country | Case | Control | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy | Cut-off | Detection method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eissa/2004 | Egypt | 63 | 46 | 0.775 | 75.4% | 70.3% | 84.9% | 80.0% | 81.2% | 322.7 ng/mg | ELISA |
| Eissa/2009 | Egypt | 240 | 110 | 0.77 | 75.2% | 69.5% | NR | NR | NR | 425.0 pg/mg | ELISA |
| Shabayek/2014 | Egypt | 50 | 20 | 0.803 | 66.0% | 75.0% | 76.74% | 63.82% | NR | 145.0 pg/ml | ELISA |
| Urquidi/2012 | USA | 64 | 63 | 0.857 | 67.0% | 97.0% | 96.0% | 74.0% | 86.0% | 410.9 pg/ml | ELISA |
BCa: bladder cancer; AUC: area under the curve; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value; NR: not reported; ELISA: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Results of the Spearman rank correlation of sensitivity against (1 − specificity) to assess the threshold effect in all test accuracy studies included in meta-analysis for diagnosing ANG in patients with bladder cancer.
| Analysis of diagnostic threshold | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spearman correlation coefficient: 0.600, | ||||
| Logit (TPR) vs. logit (FPR) | ||||
| Where log represents the natural logarithm. | ||||
|
| ||||
| Moses' model ( | ||||
| Weighted metaregression (inverse variance) | ||||
| Variables | Coefficient | Std. error |
|
|
|
| 1.954 | 0.254 | 7.680 | 0.016 |
|
| -0.703 | 0.252 | 2.791 | 0.108 |
| Tau − squared estimate = 0.1007 | ||||
|
| ||||
| Moses' model ( | ||||
| Weighted metaregression (study size) | ||||
| Variables | Coefficient | Std. error |
|
|
|
| 1.961 | 0.246 | 7.961 | 0.015 |
|
| -0.759 | 0.174 | 4.358 | |
| Tau − squared estimate = 0.1840 | ||||
TPR: true-positive rate; FPR: false-negative rate, Std. error: standard error; D = logit TPR − logit FPR; S = logit TPR + logit FPR; α is the intercept value; β represents the dependence of test accuracy on the threshold.
Pooled AUC, Q∗ index, sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR−, and DOR for diagnosing ANG in the urine of patients with bladder cancer based on the random effects model.
| No. studies | AUC |
| Variables | Pooled (95% CI) |
| Cochran's- |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 0.789 | 0.726 | Sensitivity | 0.710 (0.662-0.753) | 20.8% | 3.79 | NA | 0.285 |
| Specificity | 0.780 (0.736-0.819) | 92.1% | 37.95 | NA | <0.0001 | |||
| LR+ | 3.344 (2.021-5.533) | 82.7% | 17.33 | 0.197 | 0.001 | |||
| LR− | 0.376 (0.320-0.441) | 0% | 53.67 | 0 | 0.521 | |||
| DOR | 9.992 (4.691–21.282) | 77.4% | 13.26 | 0.443 | 0.004 |
AUC: area under the curve; I2: I-squared; χ2: Chi-squared; τ2: tau-squared; NA: not assessed; LR+: positive likelihood ratio; LR−: negative likelihood ratio; DOR: diagnostic odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. I2 = 100% × (Q − df)/Q, where Q is the Chi-squared statistic and df is the degree of freedom of Q statistic.
Figure 2The sensitivity (a), specificity (b), LR+ (c), LR− (d), and DOR (e) forest plots for the diagnosing role of ANG in the bladder carcinoma patients based on the random effects model.
Figure 3The ROC plane curve (a) and SROC (b) for diagnosing the role of ANG in the bladder carcinoma patients based on the random effects model.
Figure 4The diagnostic odds ratio based on the fixed effects model meta-analysis performed with CMA software.