Diagnostic value of circular RNAs as effective biomarkers for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Received 8 December 2018
Accepted for publication 27 February 2019
Published 10 April 2019 Volume 2019:12 Pages 2623—2633
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Sanjeev Srivastava
Hong Tan,1,* Li Gan,2,* Xiaoming Fan,3 Limin Liu,4 Shan Liu3
1Department of General Surgery, Chengdu Integrated TCM & Western Medicine Hospital (Chengdu First People’s Hospital), Chengdu, 610041, China; 2School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Key Laboratory for Human Disease Gene Study, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, Chengdu, 610054, China; 3Department of Laboratory Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, Chengdu, 610072, China; 4Jiangsu Institute of Hematology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochou University, Institute of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Suzhou, 215006, China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Background: Increasing evidence has identified circular RNAs (circRNAs) as ideal molecular biomarkers for cancer diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis. However, the overall diagnostic efficiency of circRNAs remains unclear. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of circRNA expression profiles for cancer.
Methods: A literature search of online databases was conducted to identify all eligible studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. All statistical analyses were executed using STATA 14.0, Meta-DiSc 1.4, and Review Manager 5.2 software.
Results: A total of 32 studies, involving 2,400 cases and 2,295 controls, were included in the diagnostic meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73–0.84), 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67–0.79), 2.9 (95% CI: 2.5–3.5), 0.29 (95% CI: 0.24–0.36), 10 (95% CI: 8–13), and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79–0.86), respectively. The overall analysis suggested that circRNAs are useful diagnostic biomarkers for cancer. Subgroup analysis indicated that plasma samples had a better diagnostic performance than cancer tissue samples for cancer detection. Studies involving ≥100 cases or gastric cancer showed higher sensitivities than those including <100 cases or other cancers.
Conclusion: This meta-analysis revealed that circRNAs were significantly correlated with cancer diagnosis. In addition, circRNAs had good diagnostic accuracy and might serve as effective diagnostic biomarkers for cancer.
Keywords: circular RNAs, cancer, diagnosis, biomarkers, meta-analysis
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF]