Oncotarget

Meta-Analysis:

Circulating cell free DNA as the diagnostic marker for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xin Wang _, Xia-Qing Shi, Peng-Wei Zeng, Fong-Ming Mo and Zi-Hua Chen

PDF  |  HTML  |  Supplementary Files  |  How to cite  |  Order a Reprint

Oncotarget. 2018; 9:24514-24524. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.25314

Metrics: PDF 1000 views  |   HTML 1441 views  |   ?  


Abstract

Xin Wang1, Xia-Qing Shi2, Peng-Wei Zeng3, Fong-Ming Mo4 and Zi-Hua Chen5

1Department of General Surgery, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China

2Key Laboratory of Nanobiological Technology of Chinese Ministry of Health, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China

3Department of General Surgery, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China

4Key Laboratory of Nanobiological Technology of Chinese Ministry of Health, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China

5Department of General Surgery, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China

Correspondence to:

Zi-Hua Chen, email: zihuac@outlook.com

Keywords: circulating cell free DNA; colorectal cancer; diagnosis; meta-analysis

Received: April 27, 2017     Accepted: October 28, 2017     Published: May 11, 2018

ABSTRACT

Background: Quantitative analyses of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) are suggested to be a promising method for the detection of colorectal cancer, validated clinical relevance of cfDNA has not been published so far. Though some of the inconsistent results were published. This study is the first meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of circulating cfDNA as non-invasive biomarkers for colorectal cancer.

Results: Fourteen studies concerning a quantitative analysis of circulating cfDNA for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer met the inclusion criteria. Data includes 1,258 patients with colorectal cancer and 803 healthy individuals as control was analyzed. The summary estimates were as follow: sensitivity, 0.735 (95% CI 0.713–0.757); specificity, 0.918 (95% CI, 0.900–0.934); positive likelihood ratio, 8.295 (95% CI, 5.037–13.659); negative likelihood ratio, 0.300 (95% CI, 0.231–0.391); diagnostic odds ratio, 30.783 (95% CI, 16.965–55.856); and area under the curve, 0.8818 (95% CI, 0.88–0.93), respectively. Publication bias was not evident with Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test (p = 0.197).

Materials and Methods: A systematic literature was searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure from their inception to August 07, 2017. Analyses were conducted by Meta-DiSc 1.4 and Stata 12.0. Diagnostic accuracy in sensitivity, specificity and aspects were pooled. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to identify the sources of heterogeneity. Clinical utility of the cfDNA was evaluated by Fagan nomogram.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggested that the diagnostic accuracy of circulating cfDNA has unsatisfactory sensitivity but acceptable specificity for diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Furthermore, the integrity index (ALU247/ALU115) is better than absolute DNA concentration in diagnostic accuracy of colorectal cancer.


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
PII: 25314