IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0182117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Serum tumor-associated autoantibodies as diagnostic biomarkers for lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zhen-Ming Tang
  • Zhou-Gui Ling
  • Chun-Mei Wang
  • Yan-Bin Wu
  • Jin-Liang Kong

Abstract

Objective: We performed a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic values of serum single and multiplex tumor-associated autoantibodies (TAAbs) in patients with lung cancer (LC). Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for relevant studies investigating serum TAAbs for the diagnosis of LC. The primary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the test. Results: The systematic review and meta-analysis included 31 articles with single autoantibody and 39 with multiplex autoantibodies. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was the most common detection method. For the diagnosis of patients with all stages and early-stage LC, different single or combinations of TAAbs demonstrated different diagnostic values. Although individual TAAbs showed low diagnostic sensitivity, the combination of multiplex autoantibodies offered relatively high sensitivity. For the meta-analysis of a same panel of autoantibodies in patients at all stages of LC, the pooled results of the panel of 6 TAAbs (p53, NY-ESO-1, CAGE, GBU4-5, Annexin 1 and SOX2) were: sensitivity 38% (95% CI 0.35–0.40), specificity 89% (95% CI 0.86–0.91), diagnostic accuracy 65.9% (range 62.5–81.8%), AUC 0.52 (0.48–0.57), while the summary estimates of 7 TAAbs (p53, CAGE, NY-ESO-1, GBU4-5, SOX2, MAGE A4 and Hu-D) were: sensitivity 47% (95% CI 0.34–0.60), specificity 90% (95% CI 0.89–0.92), diagnostic accuracy 78.4% (range 67.5–88.8%), AUC 0.90 (0.87–0.93). For the meta-analysis of the same panel of autoantibodies in patients at early-stage of LC, the sensitivities of both panels of 7 TAAbs and 6 TAAbs were 40% and 29.7%, while their specificities were 91% and 87%, respectively. Conclusions: Serum single or combinations of multiplex autoantibodies can be used as a tool for the diagnosis of LC patients at all stages or early-stage, but the combination of multiplex autoantibodies shows a higher detection capacity; the diagnostic value of the panel of 7 TAAbs is higher than the panel of 6 TAAbs, which may be used as potential biomarkers for the early detection of LC.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhen-Ming Tang & Zhou-Gui Ling & Chun-Mei Wang & Yan-Bin Wu & Jin-Liang Kong, 2017. "Serum tumor-associated autoantibodies as diagnostic biomarkers for lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182117
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182117
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182117&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0182117?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabel K Macdonald & Andrea Murray & Graham F Healey & Celine B Parsy-Kowalska & Jared Allen & Jane McElveen & Chris Robertson & Herbert F Sewell & Caroline J Chapman & John F R Robertson, 2012. "Application of a High Throughput Method of Biomarker Discovery to Improvement of the EarlyCDT®-Lung Test," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.