Value of concentration and gene methylation analyses of circulating cell-free DNA as diagnostic method for breast cancer: a systematic review

被引:0
|
作者
Zhu, Xiao [1 ]
Huang, Junming [2 ]
Zhang, Kun [3 ]
Yu, Yinghua [1 ]
机构
[1] Guangxi Med Univ, Affiliated Tumor Hosp, Dept Breast Surg, 71 Hedi Rd, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, Peoples R China
[2] Panyu Hosp Chinese Med, Dept Oncol, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China
[3] Qingdao Univ, Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hosp, Dept Breast Surg, Yantai, Peoples R China
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE | 2018年 / 11卷 / 08期
关键词
Breast neoplasms; circulating cell-free DNA; concentration; methy at on; meta-analysis; PROMOTER METHYLATION; ODDS RATIO; TUMOR DNA; PLASMA; SERUM; HYPERMETHYLATION; METASTASIS; CARCINOMA; ACCURACY; MARKER;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background and aims: Many studies focus attention on circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) concentration and methylation as means for early detection of breast cancer. However, the results of existing studies are different and it remains difficult to determine the diagnostic role of circulating cfDNA in breast cancer. Therefore, this study performed a meta-analysis to integrate the findings of these published studies and establish the diagnostic value of circulating cfDNA in diagnosis of breast cancer. Methods: A total of 19 studies were included and divided into three subgroups. Sensitivity, specificity, and other important measures of cfDNA accuracy for breast cancer diagnosis were pooled using random-effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis techniques were used to summarize overall accuracy. Results: Summary estimates for cfDNA concentration and gene methylation in diagnosis of breast cancer were as follows: in the subgroup of quantitative analysis, sensitivity and specificity were 0.889 (95%CI = 0.858-0.915) and 0.806 (95%CI = 0.767-0.841); PLR was 5.058 (95%Cl = 2.723-9.392); NLR was 0.150 (95% CI = 0.090-0.251) and DOR value was 42.156 (95% CI = 19.364-91.774). In the subgroup of single-gene indicators, sensitivity and specificity were 0.406 (95%CI = 0.390-0.421) and 0.848 (95% CI = 0.836-0.860); PLR was 4.569 (95% CI = 3.329-6.270); NLR was 0.643 (95% CI = 0.588-0.704) and DOR value was 8.608 (95% CI = 5.679-13.046). In the subgroup of multiple-gene panel, sensitivity and specificity were 0.778 (95% CI = 0.760-0.796) and 0.835 (95% CI = 0.819-0.850); PLR was 6.158 (95% CI = 4.432-8.556); NLR was 0.194 (95% CI = 0.139-0.272) and DOR value was 39.353 (95% CI = 21.139-73.260). Conclusion: Circulating cfDNA concentration and gene methylation analysis might be applied in breast cancer detection since the test has a relatively high level of diagnostic accuracy. If only the single-gene methylation detection assay is used for breast cancer diagnosis, extra caution should be applied. Evaluation of circulating cfDNA concentration and multiple-gene methylation analyses might improve breast cancer early diagnosis.
引用
收藏
页码:7519 / +
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Diagnostic value of circulating cell-free DNA levels for hepatocellular carcinoma
    Yan, Linlin
    Chen, Yanhui
    Zhou, Jiyuan
    Zhao, Hong
    Zhang, Henghui
    Wang, Guiqiang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2018, 67 : 92 - 97
  • [22] Concentration and Methylation of Cell-Free DNA from Blood Plasma as Diagnostic Markers of Renal Cancer
    Skrypkina, Inessa
    Tsyba, Liudmyla
    Onyshchenko, Kateryna
    Morderer, Dmytro
    Kashparova, Olena
    Nikolaienko, Oleksii
    Panasenko, Grigory
    Vozianov, Sergii
    Romanenko, Alina
    Rynditch, Alla
    DISEASE MARKERS, 2016, 2016
  • [23] Abnormal DNA methylation as a cell-free circulating DNA biomarker for colorectal cancer detection:A review of literature
    Michail Galanopoulos
    Nikolaos Tsoukalas
    Ioannis S Papanikolaou
    Maria Tolia
    Maria Gazouli
    Gerassimos J Mantzaris
    World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology, 2017, (04) : 142 - 152
  • [24] Abnormal DNA methylation as a cell-free circulating DNA biomarker for colorectal cancer detection: A review of literature
    Galanopoulos, Michail
    Tsoukalas, Nikolaos
    Papanikolaou, Ioannis S.
    Tolia, Maria
    Gazouli, Maria
    Mantzaris, Gerassimos J.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 9 (04) : 142 - 152
  • [25] The Diagnostic Value of Circulating Cell-Free HPV DNA in Plasma from Cervical Cancer Patients
    Bonlokke, Sara
    Stougaard, Magnus
    Sorensen, Boe Sandahl
    Booth, Berit Bargum
    Hogdall, Estrid
    Nyvang, Gitte-Bettina
    Lindegaard, Jacob Christian
    Blaakaer, Jan
    Bertelsen, Jesper
    Fuglsang, Katrine
    Strube, Mikael Lenz
    Lenz, Suzan
    Steiniche, Torben
    CELLS, 2022, 11 (14)
  • [26] The assessment of circulating cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool for breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative ssays
    Guo, Qingfeng
    Hua, Yuming
    CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2021, 59 (09) : 1479 - 1500
  • [27] The Prognostic Value of Plasma Cell-Free DNA Concentration in the Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Liu, Hongtao
    Gao, Yuzhen
    Vafaei, Somayeh
    Gu, Xiao
    Zhong, Xiaoli
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 11
  • [28] DNA methylation in circulating cell-free DNA of nasopharyngeal carcinoma
    Xu, Yifei
    Ma, Ning
    Midorikawa, Kaoru
    Hiraku, Yusuke
    Oikawa, Shinji
    Zhang, Zhe
    Huang, Guangwu
    Takeuchi, Kazuhiko
    Murata, Mariko
    CANCER SCIENCE, 2018, 109 : 529 - 529
  • [29] Diagnostic, prognostic and predictive value of cell-free miRNAs in prostate cancer: a systematic review
    Edgars Endzeliņš
    Vita Melne
    Zane Kalniņa
    Vilnis Lietuvietis
    Una Riekstiņa
    Alicia Llorente
    Aija Linē
    Molecular Cancer, 15
  • [30] Diagnostic, prognostic and predictive value of cell-free miRNAs in prostate cancer: a systematic review
    Endzelins, Edgars
    Melne, Vita
    Kalnina, Zane
    Lietuvietis, Vilnis
    Riekstina, Una
    Llorente, Alicia
    Line, Aija
    MOLECULAR CANCER, 2016, 15