Cargando…
Evaluation of the NMP22 BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: We examined the usefulness of the nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The diagnostic accuracy of the NMP22 BladderChek tes...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Impact Journals LLC
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5725051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29246009 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.22065 |
_version_ | 1783285465604947968 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Zijie Que, Hongliang Suo, Chuanjian Han, Zhijian Tao, Jun Huang, Zhengkai Ju, Xiaobin Tan, Ruoyun Gu, Min |
author_facet | Wang, Zijie Que, Hongliang Suo, Chuanjian Han, Zhijian Tao, Jun Huang, Zhengkai Ju, Xiaobin Tan, Ruoyun Gu, Min |
author_sort | Wang, Zijie |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: We examined the usefulness of the nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The diagnostic accuracy of the NMP22 BladderChek test was evaluated via pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under curve (AUC). Inter-study heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: We included 23 studies in the systematic review and 19 in the quantitative meta-analysis. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 56% (52–59%) and 88% (87–89%), respectively; pooled PLR and NLR were 4.36 (3.02–6.29) and 0.51 (0.40–0.66), respectively; DOR was 9.29 (5.55–15.55) with an AUC of 0.8295. The mean sensitivity for Ta, T1, ≥ T2, Tis, G1, G2, and G3 disease was 13.68%, 29.49%, 74.03%, 34.62%, 44.16%, 56.25%, and 67.34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NMP22 BladderChek test shows good discrimination ability for detecting bladder cancer and a high-specificity algorithm that can be used for early detection to rule out patients with higher bladder cancer risk. It also has better potential for screening higher-grade and higher-stage tumors, and better diagnostic performance in Asians. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5725051 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Impact Journals LLC |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57250512017-12-14 Evaluation of the NMP22 BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Wang, Zijie Que, Hongliang Suo, Chuanjian Han, Zhijian Tao, Jun Huang, Zhengkai Ju, Xiaobin Tan, Ruoyun Gu, Min Oncotarget Meta-Analysis BACKGROUND: We examined the usefulness of the nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The diagnostic accuracy of the NMP22 BladderChek test was evaluated via pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under curve (AUC). Inter-study heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: We included 23 studies in the systematic review and 19 in the quantitative meta-analysis. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 56% (52–59%) and 88% (87–89%), respectively; pooled PLR and NLR were 4.36 (3.02–6.29) and 0.51 (0.40–0.66), respectively; DOR was 9.29 (5.55–15.55) with an AUC of 0.8295. The mean sensitivity for Ta, T1, ≥ T2, Tis, G1, G2, and G3 disease was 13.68%, 29.49%, 74.03%, 34.62%, 44.16%, 56.25%, and 67.34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NMP22 BladderChek test shows good discrimination ability for detecting bladder cancer and a high-specificity algorithm that can be used for early detection to rule out patients with higher bladder cancer risk. It also has better potential for screening higher-grade and higher-stage tumors, and better diagnostic performance in Asians. Impact Journals LLC 2017-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5725051/ /pubmed/29246009 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.22065 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Wang et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) 3.0 (CC BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Meta-Analysis Wang, Zijie Que, Hongliang Suo, Chuanjian Han, Zhijian Tao, Jun Huang, Zhengkai Ju, Xiaobin Tan, Ruoyun Gu, Min Evaluation of the NMP22 BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Evaluation of the NMP22 BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Evaluation of the NMP22 BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of the NMP22 BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the NMP22 BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Evaluation of the NMP22 BladderChek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | evaluation of the nmp22 bladderchek test for detecting bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Meta-Analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5725051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29246009 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.22065 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wangzijie evaluationofthenmp22bladderchektestfordetectingbladdercancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT quehongliang evaluationofthenmp22bladderchektestfordetectingbladdercancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT suochuanjian evaluationofthenmp22bladderchektestfordetectingbladdercancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hanzhijian evaluationofthenmp22bladderchektestfordetectingbladdercancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT taojun evaluationofthenmp22bladderchektestfordetectingbladdercancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT huangzhengkai evaluationofthenmp22bladderchektestfordetectingbladdercancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT juxiaobin evaluationofthenmp22bladderchektestfordetectingbladdercancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tanruoyun evaluationofthenmp22bladderchektestfordetectingbladdercancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gumin evaluationofthenmp22bladderchektestfordetectingbladdercancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |