These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: In Silico screening of circulating tumor DNA, circulating microRNAs, and long non-coding RNAs as diagnostic molecular biomarkers in ovarian cancer: A comprehensive meta-analysis.
    Author: Zhang L, Hu C, Huang Z, Li Z, Zhang Q, He Y.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2021; 16(4):e0250717. PubMed ID: 33901236.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) is a leading cause of death in gynecological malignancies worldwide. Multitudinous studies have suggested the potential of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), circulating microRNAs (miRNAs), and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) as novel diagnostic molecular biomarkers for OC. Here, we include three updated meta-analysis methods using different molecular biomarkers to evaluate their discriminative value in OC diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted three meta-analyses after searching different databases, and 23 eligible articles, including 8 concerning ctDNA, 11 concerning miRNAs, and 4 concerning lncRNAs, were found. Further, we pooled data concerning the sensitivity, specificity, and other indicators of accuracy for ctDNA/miRNAs/lncRNAs in the diagnosis of OC. The heterogeneity was further explored by meta-regressions and subgroup analyses, and Deeks' funnel plots were used to measure the publication bias of these three meta-analyses. RESULTS: In all, this meta-analysis included 1732 OC patients and 3958 controls. The sensitivity of ctDNA for OC diagnosis was superior to that of lncRNA and miRNA (84% vs. 81% vs. 78%). Moreover, the specificity and area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of ctDNA were 91% and 94%, which were significantly higher than those of miRNA and lncRNAs (78% and 85%; 78% and 86%, respectively). No significant difference was observed among the two meta-analyses of ctDNA and lncRNA (P > 0.05) with regard to publication bias, while the meta-analysis of miRNA observed a significantly small publication bias (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ctDNA/miRNAs/lncRNAs may be promising molecular biomarkers for OC diagnosis. Further large-scale studies are needed to verify the potential applicability of ctDNA/miRNAs/lncRNAs molecular signatures alone or in combination as diagnostic molecular biomarkers for OC.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]