Accuracy of the urine UCA1 for diagnosis of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis
Metrics: PDF 1696 views | HTML 1684 views | ?
Xiangrong Cui1,2,4,*, Xuan Jing3,*, Chunlan Long1,4,5, Qin Yi1,4,5, Jie Tian6 and Jing Zhu1,4,5
1 Pediatric Research Institute, Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Chongqing, China
2 Reproductive Medicine Center, Children’s Hospital of Shanxi and Women’s Health Center of Shanxi, Affiliate of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China
3 Clinical Laboratory, Shanxi Province People’s Hospital, Affiliate of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China
4 China International Science and Technology Cooperation Base of Child Development and Critical Disorders, Chongqing, China
5 Chongqing Key Laboratory of Pediatrics, Chongqing, China
6 Cardiovascular Department (Internal Medicine), Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
* These authors have contributed equally to this work
Jing Zhu, email:
Keywords: UCA1, biomarker, bladder cancer, noninvasive diagnosis, urinary marker
Received: January 30, 2017 Accepted: March 11, 2017 Published: March 22, 2017
Urine UCA1 has been reported as a potential novel diagnostic biomarker for bladder cancer in several studies, but their results are inconsistent. As a result of this, a diagnostic meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of urine UCA1 in detecting bladder cancer was conducted. A systematic electronic and manual search was performed for relevant literatures through PubMed, Cochrane library, Chinese Wan Fang and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases up to December 30, 2016. The quality of the studies included in this meta-analysis was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. All analyses were conducted using stata12.0 software. Six studies collectively included 578 bladder cancer patients and 562 controls met the eligible criteria. The overall diagnostic accuracy was measured by the following: sensitivity 0.81 (95% CI = 0.75-0.86), specificity 0.86 (95% CI = 0.73-0.93), positive likelihood ratio 5.85 (95% CI = 2.72-12.57), negative likelihood 0.22 (95% CI = 0.15-0.32), diagnostic odds ratio 27.01 (95% CI = 8.69-83.97), and area under the curve 0.88 (95% CI = 0.85-0.91). Meta-regression analysis suggested that ethnicity significantly accounted for the heterogeneity of sensitivity. Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test (P = 0.33) suggested no potential publication bias. According to our results, urine UCA1 has greater diagnostic value in diagnosing bladder cancer, however further research studies with more well-designed and large sample sizes are required to confirm our findings.
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.