Tumor Biology

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 3137–3145 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy of cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA 21–1) for bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Review

Abstract

Previous studies have evaluated the accuracy of serum and urinary measurements of cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA 21–1) for the diagnosis of bladder cancer; however, the results have been inconsistent. The aim of this study was to evaluate the overall accuracy of CYFRA 21–1 for the diagnosis of bladder cancer. We performed a search for English-language publications reporting on the detection of CYFRA21-1 levels for the diagnosis of bladder cancer through November 2, 2014, using public medical databases, including EMBASE, Web of Science, and Medline. The quality of the studies was assessed by revised QUADAS tools. The performance characteristics were pooled and analyzed using a bivariate model. Publication bias was explored with the Deek’s test. Sixteen studies, with a total 1,262 bladder-cancer patients and 1,233 non-bladder-cancer patients, were included in the study. The pooled sensitivities for serum and urine CYFRA 21–1 were 0.42 (95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.33–0.51) and 0.82 (95 % CI, 0.70–0.90), respectively. The corresponding specificities were 0.94 (95 % CI, 0.90–0.96) and 0.80 (95 % CI, 0.73–0.86), respectively. The areas under the summary receiver-operating-characteristic curves for serum and urine CYFRA 21–1 were 0.88 (95 % CI, 0.85–0.91) and 0.87 (95 % CI, 0.84–0.90), respectively. The major design deficiencies of the included studies were participant-selection bias, potential review, and verification bias. Therefore, we concluded that both serum and urine CYFRA 21–1 served as efficient indexes for bladder-cancer diagnosis. Additional, well-designed studies should be performed to rigorously evaluate the diagnostic value of CYFRA 21–1 for bladder cancer.

Keywords

Meta-analysis Cytokeratin-19 fragment Bladder cancer Sensitivity Specificity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Medjaden Bioscience Limited for assisting in the preparation of this manuscript. This research was supported by grants from 973 Foundation (2013CB531606), Shanghai Municipal Commission for Science and Technology (11JC1410902), Dingyuan Grant of Talent Development in Yangpu District, Wujieping Grant (320.6750.13147), and Changhai Hospital (CH125530300).

Conflicts of interest

None

Supplementary material

13277_2015_3352_MOESM1_ESM.doc (63 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 63 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Burger M, Catto JW, Dalbagni G, Grossman HB, Herr H, Karakiewicz P, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of urothelial bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;63:234–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheung G, Sahai A, Billia M, Dasgupta P, Khan MS. Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. BMC Med. 2013;11:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borden Jr LS, Clark PE. Hall MC bladder cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2003;15:227–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dey P. Urinary markers of bladder carcinoma. Clin Chim Acta. 2004;340:57–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alvarez A, Lokeshwar VB. Bladder cancer biomarkers: current developments and future implementation. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:341–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Linder S. Cytokeratin markers come of age. Tumour Biol. 2007;28:189–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain R, Fischer S, Serra S, Chetty R. The use of cytokeratin 19 (ck19) immunohistochemistry in lesions of the pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, and liver. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2010;18:9–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Group P preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. W64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. Quadas-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:982–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:882–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Midas BD. Computational and graphical routines for meta-analytical integration of diagnostic accuracy studies in stata. 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeong S, Park Y, Cho Y, Kim YR, Kim HS. Diagnostic values of urine cyfra21-1, nmp22, ubc, and fdp for the detection of bladder cancer. Clin Chim Acta. 2012;414:93–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gkialas I, Papadopoulos G, Iordanidou L, Stathouros G, Tzavara C, Gregorakis A, et al. Evaluation of urine tumor-associated trypsin inhibitor, cyfra 21–1, and urinary bladder cancer antigen for detection of high-grade bladder carcinoma. Urology. 2008;72:1159–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morsi MI, Youssef AI, Hassouna ME, El-Sedafi AS, Ghazal AA, Zaher ER. Telomerase activity, cytokeratin 20 and cytokeratin 19 in urine cells of bladder cancer patients. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2006;18:82–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nisman B, Barak V, Shapiro A, Golijanin D, Peretz T, Pode D. Evaluation of urine cyfra 21–1 for the detection of primary and recurrent bladder carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;94:2914–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sanchez-Carbayo M, Urrutia M, Silva JM, Romani R, De Buitrago JM, Navajo JA. Comparative predictive values of urinary cytology, urinary bladder cancer antigen, cyfra 21–1 and nmp22 for evaluating symptomatic patients at risk for bladder cancer. J Urol. 2001;165:1462–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mady EA. Cytokeratins as serum markers in Egyptian bladder cancer. A comparison of cyfra 21–1, tpa and tps. Int J Biol Markers. 2001;16:130–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pariente JL, Bordenave L, Jacob F, Gobinet A, Leger F, Ferriere JM, et al. Analytical and prospective evaluation of urinary cytokeratin 19 fragment in bladder cancer. J Urol. 2000;163:1116–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    El-Ahmady O, Halim AB, El-Din AG. The clinical value of cyfra21-1 in bladder cancer patients: Egyptian experience. Anticancer Res. 1999;19:2603–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanchez-Carbayo M, Herrero E, Megias J, Mira A, Soria F. Comparative sensitivity of urinary cyfra 21–1, urinary bladder cancer antigen, tissue polypeptide antigen, tissue polypeptide antigen and nmp22 to detect bladder cancer. J Urol. 1999;162:1951–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schambeck CM, Stieber P, Schmeller N, Hofmann K, Pahl H, Fateh-Moghadam A. Cyfra 21–1 quantity measurement in the urine of patients with carcinoma of the urinary bladder and tract. Anticancer Res. 1997;17:3063–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morita T, Kikuchi T, Hashimoto S, Kobayashi Y, Tokue A. Cytokeratin-19 fragment (cyfra 21–1) in bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 1997;32:237–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pariente JL, Bordenave L, Michel P, Latapie MJ, Ducassou D, Le Guillou M. Initial evaluation of cyfra 21–1 diagnostic performances as a urinary marker in bladder transitional cell carcinoma. J Urol. 1997;158:338–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stieber P, Schmeller N, Schambeck C, Hofmann K, Reiter W, Hasholzner U, et al. Clinical relevance of cyfra 21–1, tpa-irma and tpa-lia-mat in urinary bladder cancer. Anticancer Res. 1996;16:3793–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Senga Y, Kimura G, Hattori T, Yoshida K. Clinical evaluation of soluble cytokeratin 19 fragments (cyfra 21–1) in serum and urine of patients with bladder cancer. Urology. 1996;48:703–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stieber P, Dienemann H, Hasholzner U, Fabricius PG, Schambeck C, Weinzierl M, et al. Comparison of cyfra 21–1, tpa and tps in lung cancer, urinary bladder cancer and benign diseases. Int J Biol Markers. 1994;9:82–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Correale M, Arnberg H, Blockx P, Bombardieri E, Castelli M, Encabo G, et al. Clinical profile of a new monoclonal antibody-based immunoassay for tissue polypeptide antigen. Int J Biol Markers. 1994;9:231–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The stard statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1129–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cleophas TJ, Zwinderman AH. Meta-analyses of diagnostic studies. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009;47:1351–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reitsma JB, Moons KG, Bossuyt PM, Linnet K. Systematic reviews of studies quantifying the accuracy of diagnostic tests and markers. Clin Chem. 2012;58:1534–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leeflang MM, Moons KG, Reitsma JB, Zwinderman AH. Bias in sensitivity and specificity caused by data-driven selection of optimal cutoff values: mechanisms, magnitude, and solutions. Clin Chem. 2008;54:729–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999;282:1061–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:189–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Laboratory MedicineShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of HematologyChanghai HospitalShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Laboratory Diagnosis, Changhai HospitalSecond Military Medical UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Department of Laboratory Diagnosis, Changhai HospitalSecond Military Medical UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations