Serum microRNA-21 (miR-21) expression has been shown to be significantly up-regulated in breast cancer, which implies that it could be a biomarker to discriminate breast cancer patients from healthy controls. We therefore performed this meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic value of miR-21 for breast cancer. Relevant articles were collected from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, BioMed Central, ISI Web of Knowledge, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data and Technology of Chongqing databases, from inception to June 10, 2014 by two independent researchers. Diagnostic capacity of miR-21 for breast cancer was assessed using pooled sensitivity and specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (AUC) and Fagan’s nomogram. Meta-Disc software and Stata SE 12.0 were used to investigate the source of heterogeneity and to perform the meta-analysis. We used six studies with a total of 438 patients and 228 healthy controls in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and DOR were 0.79 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.66–0.87], 0.85 (95 % CI 0.75–0.91) and 19.46 (95 % CI 8.74–43.30), respectively; positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5 and 0.25, and AUC was 0.89 (95 % CI 0.86–0.91). In addition, heterogeneity was clearly apparent but was not caused by the threshold effect. This meta-analysis suggests that miR-21 is a potential biomarker for early diagnosis of breast cancer with high sensitivity and specificity, and its clinical application warrants further investigation.
Breast cancer miR-21 Diagnosis Meta-analysis
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors would like to thank Bin Qin for supporting more datum that not reported in their articles. And thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
Euler-Chelpin MV, Louise MR, Brian LT, et al. Risk of breast cancer after false-positive test results in screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(9):682–9. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahendar P, Nagulu M, Uday KV, et al. evaluation of tumor markers in southern Indian breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11:157–9.Google Scholar
Fiorella G, Patrizia F, Sandro C, et al. A re-evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a serum marker for breast cancer : a prospective longitudinal study. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7:2357–62.Google Scholar
Nicolini A, Colombini C, Luciani L, et al. Evaluation of serum CA15-3 determination with CEA and TPA in the post-operative follow-up of breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 1991;64:154–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Penny W, Anne WR, Johannes BR, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3(25).Google Scholar
Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6(31). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-31.
Mar-Aguilar F, Mendoza-Ramirez JA, Malagon-Santiago I, et al. Serum circulating microRNA profiling for identification of potential breast cancer biomarkers. Dis Marker. 2013;34(3):163–9. doi:10.3233/dma-120957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li XF, Xu JJ, Zhang QY. Establishment of real-time PCR for detecting serum micriRNA-21 and its preliminary application in breast cancer. Chin J Lab Med. 2011;34(10):920–5.Google Scholar
Götte M. MicroRNAs in breast cancer pathogenesis. Minerva Ginecol. 2010;62(6):559–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar