IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0228857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The threshold of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaxin Zhang
  • Guang Chen
  • Peng Zhang
  • Jiaying Zhang
  • Xiaoke Li
  • Da’nan Gan
  • Xu Cao
  • Mei Han
  • Hongbo Du
  • Yong’an Ye

Abstract

Objective: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become a pressing health problem facing the world today due to its high morbidity, high mortality, and late discovery. As a diagnostic criteria of HCC, the exact threshold of Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is controversial. Therefore, this study was aimed to systematically estimate the performance of AFP in diagnosing HCC and to clarify its optimal threshold. Methods: Medline and Embase databases were searched for articles indexed up to November 2019. English language studies were included if both the sensitivity and specificity of AFP in the diagnosis of HCC were provided. The basic information and accuracy data included in the studies were extracted. Combined estimates for sensitivity and specificity were statistically analyzed by random-effects model using MetaDisc 1.4 and Stata 15.0 software at the prespecified threshold of 400 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, and the range of 20–100 ng/mL. The optimal threshold was evaluated by the area under curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC). Results: We retrieved 29,828 articles and included 59 studies and 1 review with a total of 11,731 HCC cases confirmed by histomorphology and 21,972 control cases without HCC. The included studies showed an overall judgment of at risk of bias. Four studies with AFP threshold of 400 ng/mL showed the summary sensitivity and specificity of 0.32 (95%CI 0.31–0.34) and 0.99 (95%CI 0.98–0.99), respectively. Four studies with AFP threshold of 200 ng/mL showed the summary sensitivity and specificity of 0.49 (95%CI 0.47–0.50) and 0.98 (95%CI 0.97–0.99), respectively. Forty-six studies with AFP threshold of 20–100 ng/mL showed the summary sensitivity and specificity of 0.61 (95%CI 0.60–0.62) and 0.86 (95%CI 0.86–0.87), respectively. The AUC of SROC and Q index of 400 ng/mL threshold were 0.9368 and 0.8734, respectively, which were significantly higher than those in 200 ng/mL threshold (0.9311 and 0.8664, respectively) and higher than those in 20–100 ng/mL threshold (0.8330 and 0.7654, respectively). Furthermore, similar result that favored 400 ng/mL were shown in the threshold in terms of AFP combined with ultrasound. Conclusion: AFP levels in serum showed good accuracy in HCC diagnosis, and the threshold of AFP with 400 ng/mL was better than that of 200 ng/mL in terms of sensitivity and specificity no matter AFP is used alone or combined with ultrasound.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaxin Zhang & Guang Chen & Peng Zhang & Jiaying Zhang & Xiaoke Li & Da’nan Gan & Xu Cao & Mei Han & Hongbo Du & Yong’an Ye, 2020. "The threshold of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228857
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228857
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228857&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0228857?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0228857. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.