The Diagnostic Power of Circulating miR-1246 in Screening Cancer: An Updated Meta-analysis

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies.

Author

Year

Country

Case vs. control

Clinical stage

, case/control

Sample

Technique

TP

FP

TN

FN

AUC

Ref.

Takeshita

2013

Japan

ESCC vs. HC

I-IV

101/46

Serum exosome

RT-qPCR

72

12

34

29

0.754

[19]

Ogata-Kawata

2014

Japan

CRC vs. HC

I-IV

88/11

Serum exosome

Microarray

84

1

10

4

0.948

[20]

Fu

2016

China

BC vs. HC

I-IV

100/40

Serum

RT-qPCR

93

10

30

7

0.904

[21]

Armand-Labit

2016

France

Melanoma vs. HC

III-IV

28/16

Plasma

RT-qPCR

26

1

15

2

0.95^£

[22]

Chai

2016

Hong Kong

HCC vs. HC

Na

61/24

Plasma

RT-qPCR

49

0

24

12

0.982^£

[23]

Hannafon

2016

USA

BC vs. HC

0-III

16/16

Plasma exosome

RT-qPCR

9

1

15

7

0.69^£

[24]

Machida

2016

Japan

PT vs. HC

I-IV

12/13

Saliva exosome

RT-qPCR

8

0

13

4

0.814

[25]

Shimomura

2016

Japan

BC vs. HC

0-IV

1206/1397

Serum

Microarray

1065

92

1305

141

0.91

[26]

Xu

2017

USA

PC vs. HC

I-IIA

15/15

Plasma exosome

RT-qPCR

10

3

12

5

0.73^£

[27]

Todeschini

2017

Italy

OC vs. HC

III-IV

168/65

Serum

RT-qPCR

146

15

50

22

0.893

[28]

Zhai

2018

China

BC vs. HC

Na

46/28

Plasma exosome

Au nanoflare probe

46

2

26

0

0.982

[29]

Bhagirath

2018^†

USA

PCa vs. HC

IV

44/8

Serum exosome

RT-qPCR

33

0

8

11

0.926

[30]

Bhagirath

2018^‡

USA

PCa vs. HC

IV

43/7

Serum exosome

RT-qPCR

38

0

7

5

0.933

[30]

Moshiri

2018

Italy

HCC vs. cirrhosis

Na

16/27

Plasma

ddPCR

14

4

23

2

0.97

[31]

Wang

2018

China

HCC vs. HC

I-IV

50/50

Serum exosome

RT-qPCR

30

6

44

20

0.825^£

[32]

Guo

2018

China

CRC vs. HC

0-IV

107/120

Serum

RT-qPCR

69

38

82

38

0.681

[33]

Shi

2020

China

GC vs. HC

I-IV

85/50

Serum exosome

RT-qPCR

70

7

43

15

0.911

[34]

Wei

2020

China

PC vs. benign+HC

I-IV

120/80

Serum

RT-qPCR

101

29

51

19

0.81

[35]

Ishige

2020

Japan

PC vs. HC

0-IV

41/30

Serum

RT-qPCR

38

8

22

3

0.87

[36]

Salah

2020

Egypt

CRC vs. HC

II-III

37/30

Serum

RT-qPCR

37

6

24

0

0.924

[37]

Huang

2020

China

NSCLC vs. HC

I

33/50

Serum

RT-qPCR

21

7

43

12

0.827^£

[38]

Hoshino

2020^†

Japan

ESCC vs. HC

I-IV

55/39

Serum

RT-qPCR

40

12

27

15

0.816

[39]

Hoshino

2020^‡

Japan

ESCC vs. HC

I-IV

101/34

Serum

RT-qPCR

72

10

24

29

0.779

[39]

Ueta

2021

Japan

GBC vs. benign+HC

0-IV

50/69

Serum exosome

RT-qPCR

30

23

46

20

0.646

[40]

Chen

2021

China

BC vs. HC

Na

33/37

Plasma exosome

Molecular beacon

31

1

36

2

0.983

[41]

Zhang

2021

China

BC vs. HC

I-IV

21/9

Plasma exosome

Electrochemical biosensor

17

0

9

4

0.931^£

[42]

Chen

2021

China

HCC vs. HC

I-IV

50/50

Serum

RT-qPCR

41

10

40

9

0.865

[43]

Jang

2021^†

Korea

BC vs. HC

0-IV

146/90

Serum

RT-qPCR

136

13

77

10

0.955

[44]

Jang

2021^‡

Korea

BC vs. HC

0-IV

80/56

Plasma

RT-qPCR

77

8

48

3

0.963

[44]

Hoshino

2021^§

Japan

ESCC vs. HC

I-IV

72/50

Urine

RT-qPCR

65

19

31

7

0.823

[45]

Hoshino

2021^¶

Japan

ESCC vs. HC

I-IV

72/50

Saliva

RT-qPCR

60

17

33

12

0.802

[45]

Rafiee

2022

Iran

CRC vs. HC

I-III

45/45

Serum

RT-qPCR

27

1

44

18

0.84^£

[46]

Zhao

2022

China

MM vs. HC

I-III

90/30

Serum

RT-qPCR

78

1

29

12

0.952

[47]

AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve; BC: breast cancer; CRC: colorectal cancer; ESCC: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; GBC: gallbladder cancer; GC: gastric cancer; HC: healthy control; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; MM: multiple myeloma; Na: not available; NSCLC: non-small-cell lung cancer; OC: ovarian cancer; PC: pancreatic cancer; PCa: prostate cancer; PT: pancreatobiliary tract cancer; ddPCR: droplet digital polymerase chain reaction; RT-qPCR: reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction; TP: true positive; FP: false positive; TN: true negative; FN: false negative; Ref.: reference. ^†Test set. ^‡Validation set. ^§Testing in urine specimens. ^¶Testing in saliva specimens. ^£Sensitivity and specificity values corresponding to the maximum Youden’s index were extracted from the ROC curve; then, true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative numbers were calculated.