Diagnostic value of cell-free DNA in thyroid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

An increasing number of studies have shown the potential diagnostic value of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) as a new biomarker in the management of thyroid cancer (TC); however, the accuracy of research results is inconsistent. This meta-analysis is the first to synthesize published results and evaluate the application value of circulating cfDNA in the diagnosis of TC. METHODS: A search strategy was developed according to PICO (P: Patient; I: Intervention; C: Comparison; O: Outcome) principles. We searched 5 databases until October 2022. Original studies that examined cfDNA for the diagnosis of TC and used pathology as the gold standard were included in this meta-analysis. A random-effects model was used to pool the data extracted from individual studies, including the number of patients and the numbers of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives. RESULTS: A total of 622 patients with TC, 547 patients with benign thyroid nodules, and 98 healthy individuals were included in 20 studies reported in 14 articles. The types of cfDNA included in the research include specific mutations of cfDNA, methylation of cfDNA, the content of cfDNA, and cfDNA index. After rigorous statistical analysis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.85), 0.87 (95% CI 0.78–0.93), 5.08 (95% CI 3.3–10.3), 0.28 (95% CI 0.17–0.46), 21 (95% CI 9–49), and 0.89 (95% CI 0.86–0.91), respectively. The meta-regression results showed that the number of cfDNAs, cfDNA methylation status, and sample size were the sources of heterogeneity in the specificity of the study. A subgroup analysis showed that the quantitative analysis group (cfDNA level) had a higher diagnostic accuracy than that of the qualitative analysis group (cfDNA methylation, mutation, or integrity index), with a sensitivity of 0.84, specificity of 0.89, and area under the curve of 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that cfDNA has value as an adjunct for the diagnosis of TC. Quantitative detection of cfDNA can achieve relatively high diagnostic accuracy. However, due to heterogeneity, the test results based on cfDNA for TC should be interpreted with caution.