Diagnostic Performance of Intestinal Fusobacterium nucleatum in Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis - PubMed (original) (raw)

Meta-Analysis

Diagnostic Performance of Intestinal Fusobacterium nucleatum in Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Bo-Jian Peng et al. Chin Med J (Engl). 2018.

Abstract

in English, Chinese

Background: Increasing evidence has supported the link of intestinal Fusobacterium nucleatum infection to colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the value of F. nucleatum as a biomarker in CRC detection has not been fully defined. In order to reduce the random error and bias of individual research, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of intestinal F. nucleatum in CRC patients and provide evidence-based data to clinical practice.

Methods: An article search was performed from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to December 2017, using the following key words: "Fusobacterium nucleatum", "Fusobacterium spp.", "Fn", "colorectal cancer(s)", "colorectal carcinoma(s)", "colorectal neoplasm(s)", and "colorectal tumor(s)". Articles on relationships between F. nucleatum and CRC were selected according to the preestablished inclusion and exclusion criteria. This meta-analysis was performed using STATA 12.0 software, which included mapping of forest plots, heterogeneity tests, meta-regression, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of each eligible study were summarized.

Results: Finally, data for 1198 participants (629 CRC and 569 healthy controls) in 10 controlled studies from seven articles were included. The summary receiver operator characteristic curve was mapped. The diagnostic performance of intestinal F. nucleatum infection on CRC was as follows: the area under the curve: 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89), the pooled sensitivity: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.64-0.91), specificity: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.59-0.89), and DOR: 14.00 (95% CI: 9.00-22.00).

Conclusion: Intestinal F. nucleatum is a valuable marker for CRC diagnosis.

肠道具核梭杆菌检测对结直肠癌诊断价值 - Meta 分析 摘要 背景 : 近年，肠道具核梭杆菌感染和结直肠癌发病的相关性的研究增多，但其作为生物标志物的临床诊断价值尚未完全明确。为减少单个研究随机误差及偏倚，本研究采用荟萃（Meta）分析评估肠道具核梭杆菌检测对结直肠癌诊断的价值, 为临床应用提供循证医学依据。 方法 : 检索从建库起至2017年12月PubMed、Embase、 Cochrane Library、Web of Science，关键词为“具核梭杆菌”, “梭菌属”, “_Fn_”, “结直肠癌”, 和“结直肠肿瘤”。按照预先制定的纳入和排除标准筛选文献。本文使用Stata12.0软件进行统计学分析，包括绘制森林图、异质性检验、Meta回归、亚组分析、敏感性分析、发表偏倚等。再汇总每项纳入研究的诊断的敏感性，特异性，阳性似然比，阴性似然比，诊断比值比以及其相应的95%可信区间等参数。 结果 : 最终本分析共纳入1198参与者，（结直肠癌629例，健康人群569例），资料来源于7篇文献，共10项研究。具核梭杆菌诊断结直肠癌的综合参数如下：曲线下面积0.86（95% CI: 0.83-0.89）、敏感性0.81（95% CI: 0.64-0.89）、特异性0.77（95% CI: 0.59-0.89）、诊断比值比14.00（95% CI: 9.00比0.89积）。 结论 : 具核梭杆菌可作为诊断结直肠癌有价值的标志物。.

Keywords: Colorectal Neoplasms; Diagnosis; Fusobacterium nucleatum; Meta-Analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

Flow diagram of the step-wise selection for this meta-analysis.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Forest plot of the pooled diagnostic accuracy of Fusobacterium nucleatum for colorectal cancer detection. CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 3

Figure 3

SROC assessment of diagnostic performance of Fusobacterium nucleatum for colorectal cancer. SROC: Summary receiver operator characteristic curve.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Fagan plot analysis to evaluate the intestinal Fusobacterium nucleatum infection for diagnosis of CRC. Prior Prob: Prior probability; Post Prob: Postprobability; LR: Likelihood ratio.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Funnel plot asymmetry test for publication bias. Each spot represents a separate study. logor: Log odds ratio; s.e. of logor: Standard error of log odds ratio.

Figure 6

Figure 6

Egger's linear regression test for publication bias. Each spot represents a separate study.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262. - PubMed
    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107. - PubMed
    1. Ye D, Huang Q, Li Q, Jiang X, Mamat M, Tang M, et al. Comparative evaluation of preliminary screening methods for colorectal cancer in a mass program. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62:2532–41. doi: 10.1007/s10620-017-4648-1. - PubMed
    1. Sung JJ, Ng SC, Chan FK, Chiu HM, Kim HS, Matsuda T, et al. An updated Asia Pacific consensus recommendations on colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2015;64:121–32. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306503. - PubMed
    1. Lee JK, Liles EG, Bent S, Levin TR, Corley DA. Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:171. doi: 10.7326/M13-1484. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources