Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28460452›Full record

SynthesisOncotarget2017

Value of circulating cell-free DNA analysis as a diagnostic tool for breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

Ziqiang Lin, James Neiswender, Bin Fang, Xuelei Ma, Jing Zhang, Xiuying Hu

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Breast cancer: pathogenesis and treatments.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ziqiang LinState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
James NeiswenderProgram in Molecular Medicine, Department of Molecular Cell and Cancer Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01655, USA.
Bin FangState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Xuelei MaState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Jing ZhangState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Xiuying HuState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of cell free DNA (cfDNA) for breast cancer.

resultsAmong 308 candidate articles, 25 with relevant diagnostic screening qualified for final analysis. The mean sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of SROC plots for 24 studies that distinguished breast cancer patients from healthy controls were 0.70, 0.87, and 0.9314, yielding a DOR of 32.31. When analyzed in subgroups, the 14 quantitative studies produced sensitivity, specificity, AUC, and a DOR of 0.78, 0.83, 0.9116, and 24.40. The 10 qualitative studies produced 0.50, 0.98, 0.9919, and 68.45. For 8 studies that distinguished malignant breast cancer from benign diseases, the specificity, sensitivity, AUC and DOR were 0.75, 0.79, 0.8213, and 9.49. No covariate factors had a significant correlation with relative DOR. Deek's funnel plots indicated an absence of publication bias. MATERIALS AND

methodsDatabases were searched for studies involving the use of cfDNA to diagnose breast cancer. The studies were analyzed to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC). Covariates were evaluated for effect on relative DOR. Deek's Funnel plots were generated to measure publication bias.

conclusionsOur analysis suggests a promising diagnostic potential of using cfDNA for breast cancer screening, but this diagnostic method is not yet independently sufficient. Further work refining qualitative cfDNA assays will improve the correct diagnosis of breast cancers.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCell-Free Nucleic AcidsDNA, NeoplasmArea Under CurveBreast NeoplasmsDatabases, GeneticEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLiquid BiopsyPublication BiasReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveBiomarkers, TumorCell-Free Nucleic AcidsDNA, Neoplasmaccuracybreast cancercell-free DNAdiagnosismeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID28460452
PMCPMC5432284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.