SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2023
Circulating tumor cells in peripheral blood as a diagnostic biomarker of breast cancer: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A revolutionary era in advancing precision immuno-oncology; role of circulating tumor cells.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2024Review
- Characterization of EpCAM-Positive and EpCAM-Negative Tumor Cells in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Advancements in non-invasive biomarkers for detection and monitoring of breast cancer recurrence.Science progressReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Studies have reported that breast cancer (BC) patients' circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have varying results for their diagnostic role. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to systematically assess the accuracy of CTCs in the diagnosis of BC. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the overall accuracy of CTC detection. A pooled analysis of sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic advantage ratio (DOR) was used to measure diagnostic accuracy. In addition, the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to discriminate BC from non-BC. An analysis of the threshold effect was calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. We calculated the Q and I2 statistics to determine whether the studies were heterogeneous. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies one by one. Publication bias was assessed by Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. Results: Studies from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang, Vip, and CNKI databases were collected for diagnosing BC from January 2000 to April March 2023. Finally, 8 publications were retrieved in total containing 2014 cases involved in the study. Based on a random-effects model, it was found that the pooled SEN was 0.69 (0.55 - 0.80), SPE was 0.93 (0.60 - 0.99), PLR was 9.5 (1.4 - 65.9), NLR was 0.33 (0.23 - 0.48), DOR was 29 (4 - 205) and the AUC of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.81 (0.77 - 0.84). Some heterogeneity was found in the article, but there was no threshold effect to account for it (P = 0.27). Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test indicated that no publication bias was observed in this meta-analysis (P = 0.52). Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis confirmed that CTCs were an important component of noninvasive methods of confirming BC with SEN of 0.69 (0.55 - 0.80), SPE of 0.93 (0.60 - 0.99) and AUC of 0.81 (0.77 - 0.84).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.