TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical utility and diagnostic value of tumor-educated platelets in lung cancer
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Wiyarta, Elvan
AU - Nugraha, Darrin Ananda
AU - Ramadani, Muhammad Indera
AU - Gustya, Gita Fajri
AU - Ammar, Muhammad Farrasy
AU - Edwar, Hana Dzakira
AU - Kheirizzad, Nildza
AU - Mukhlisah, Mutiah Nurul
AU - Burhan, Erlina
AU - Syahruddin, Elisna
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2023 Wiyarta, Nugraha, Ramadani, Gustya, Ammar, Edwar, Kheirizzad, Mukhlisah, Burhan and Syahruddin.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Background: The review addresses the knowledge gap concerning the diagnostic value and clinical utility of tumor-educated platelets (TEPs) in adult patients with lung cancer. Methods: We searched twelve databases: PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, ProQuest, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, SSRN, Clinicaltrials.gov, and CNKI up to 24 March 2023, to include any diagnostic study regarding TEPs and LC. TEPs diagnostic value was evaluated from pooled sensitivity and specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC). QUADAS 2 was used to assess the risk of bias. Heterogeneity analysis was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plane, Galbraith plot, bivariate boxplot, sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression. TEPs clinical utility was evaluated from Fagan’s nomogram. Results: 44 reports from 10 studies, including 7,858 events and 6,632 controls, were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.80 (95% CI 0.79–0.80), 0.69 (95% CI 0.69–0.70), 2.92 (95% CI 2.50–3.41), 0.26 (95% CI 0.21–0.32), and 12.1 (95% CI 8.61–16.76), respectively. In addition, the AUC of the Summary ROC curve was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.88). The overall risk of bias was low. Heterogeneity may result from cancer stage, cancer control, measuring equipment, and RNA types across studies. There was no apparent publication bias (p=0.29) with significant positive (79%) and negative (22%) post-test probability, according to Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test and Fagan’s nomogram. Conclusion: TEPs could be a moderately effective candidate biomarker for LC diagnosis.
AB - Background: The review addresses the knowledge gap concerning the diagnostic value and clinical utility of tumor-educated platelets (TEPs) in adult patients with lung cancer. Methods: We searched twelve databases: PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, ProQuest, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, SSRN, Clinicaltrials.gov, and CNKI up to 24 March 2023, to include any diagnostic study regarding TEPs and LC. TEPs diagnostic value was evaluated from pooled sensitivity and specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC). QUADAS 2 was used to assess the risk of bias. Heterogeneity analysis was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plane, Galbraith plot, bivariate boxplot, sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression. TEPs clinical utility was evaluated from Fagan’s nomogram. Results: 44 reports from 10 studies, including 7,858 events and 6,632 controls, were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.80 (95% CI 0.79–0.80), 0.69 (95% CI 0.69–0.70), 2.92 (95% CI 2.50–3.41), 0.26 (95% CI 0.21–0.32), and 12.1 (95% CI 8.61–16.76), respectively. In addition, the AUC of the Summary ROC curve was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.88). The overall risk of bias was low. Heterogeneity may result from cancer stage, cancer control, measuring equipment, and RNA types across studies. There was no apparent publication bias (p=0.29) with significant positive (79%) and negative (22%) post-test probability, according to Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test and Fagan’s nomogram. Conclusion: TEPs could be a moderately effective candidate biomarker for LC diagnosis.
KW - biomarker
KW - diagnosis
KW - liquid biopsy
KW - review
KW - RNA
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85167416022&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fonc.2023.1201713
DO - 10.3389/fonc.2023.1201713
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85167416022
SN - 2234-943X
VL - 13
JO - Frontiers in Oncology
JF - Frontiers in Oncology
M1 - 1201713
ER -