scholarly journals Circulating Cell Free DNA as the Diagnostic Marker for Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e0155495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quan Zhou ◽  
Wei Li ◽  
Bingjie Leng ◽  
Wenfei Zheng ◽  
Ze He ◽  
...  
Oncotarget ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (36) ◽  
pp. 24514-24524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Wang ◽  
Xia-Qing Shi ◽  
Peng-Wei Zeng ◽  
Fong-Ming Mo ◽  
Zi-Hua Chen

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Barbosa ◽  
Ana Peixoto ◽  
Pedro Pinto ◽  
Manuela Pinheiro ◽  
Manuel R. Teixeira

AbstractCirculating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) consists of small fragments of DNA that circulate freely in the bloodstream. In cancer patients, a fraction of cfDNA is derived from tumour cells, therefore containing the same genetic and epigenetic alterations, and is termed circulating cell-free tumour DNA. The potential use of cfDNA, the so-called ‘liquid biopsy’, as a non-invasive cancer biomarker has recently received a lot of attention. The present review will focus on studies concerning the potential clinical applications of cfDNA in ovarian cancer patients.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Changqing Yin ◽  
Changliang Luo ◽  
Wei Hu ◽  
Xu Ding ◽  
Chunhui Yuan ◽  
...  

As part of “liquid biopsy,” lots of literature indicated the potential diagnostic value of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). However, the literature on the accuracy of cfDNA detection in PCa has been inconsistent. Hence, we performed this meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic value of cfDNA in PCa. A total of 19 articles were included in this analysis according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then investigated two main subgroups in this meta-analysis, including qualitative analysis of abnormal level of cfDNA and qualitative analysis of single-gene methylation alterations. Overall, the results of quantitative analysis showed sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62–0.82) and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70–0.87), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80–0.86). For qualitative assessment, the values were 0.34 (95% CI, 0.22–0.48), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97–1.00), and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88–0.93), respectively. Our results suggest the pooled specificity of each subgroup is much higher than the specificity of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). However, they are not recommended for PCa screening alone, because their sensitivities are not higher than the conventional serum biomarkers PSA. We conclude that analysis of cfDNA can be used as an adjuvant tool for PCa screening.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 1049-1055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen‐Lise G. Spindler ◽  
Anders K. Boysen ◽  
Niels Pallisgård ◽  
Julia S. Johansen ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document