Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Jul 4;8(27):44893-44909.
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16488.

The clinical role of microRNA-21 as a promising biomarker in the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Qiliang Peng  1   2   3 , Xueli Zhang  4   5 , Ming Min  4 , Li Zou  1   2   3 , Peipei Shen  1   2   3 , Yaqun Zhu  1   2   3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The clinical role of microRNA-21 as a promising biomarker in the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Qiliang Peng et al. Oncotarget. .

Abstract

This systematic analysis aimed to investigate the value of microRNA-21 (miR-21) in colorectal cancer for multiple purposes, including diagnosis and prognosis, as well as its predictive power in combination biomarkers. Fifty-seven eligible studies were included in our meta-analysis, including 25 studies for diagnostic meta-analysis and 32 for prognostic meta-analysis. For the diagnostic meta-analysis of miR-21 alone, the overall pooled results for sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.53-0.74), 0.85 (0.79-0.90), and 0.85 (0.81-0.87), respectively. Circulating samples presented corresponding values of 0.72 (0.63-0.79), 0.84 (0.78-0.89), and 0.86 (0.83-0.89), respectively. For the diagnostic meta-analysis of miR-21-related combination biomarkers, the above three parameters were 0.79 (0.69-0.86), 0.79 (0.68-0.87), and 0.86 (0.83-0.89), respectively. Notably, subgroup analysis suggested that miRNA combination markers in circulation exhibited high predictive power, with sensitivity of 0.85 (0.70-0.93), specificity of 0.86 (0.77-0.92), and AUC of 0.92 (0.89-0.94). For the prognostic meta-analysis, patients with higher expression of miR-21 had significant shorter disease-free survival [DFS; pooled hazard ratio (HR): 1.60; 95% CI: 1.20-2.15] and overall survival (OS; 1.54; 1.27-1.86). The combined HR in tissues for DFS and OS were 1.76 (1.31-2.36) and 1.58 (1.30-1.93), respectively. Our comprehensive systematic review revealed that circulating miR-21 may be suitable as a diagnostic biomarker, while tissue miR-21 could be a prognostic marker for colorectal cancer. In addition, miRNA combination biomarkers may provide a new approach for clinical application.

Keywords: colorectal cancer; diagnosis; meta-analysis; miR-21; prognosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study selection process
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forest plots of sensitivities and specificities of individual miR-21 in the diagnosis of CRC
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forest plots of sensitivities and specificities of miR-21-related combination markers in the diagnosis of CRC
Figure 4
Figure 4. SROC curves in the diagnosis of CRC
A. SROC curve for miR-21 alone. B. SROC curve for miR-21-related combination markers. C. SROC curve for miR-21 alone in circulating samples. D. SROC curve for miR-21-related combination markers in circulating samples.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Forest plots of the correlation between miR-21 expression level and CRC prognosis
A. Forest plot of DFS. B. Forest plot of OS.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Deeks’ funnel plots for the assessment of potential bias in the meta-analysis for diagnosis
A. Funnel plot of the studies on miR-21 alone. B. Funnel plot of the studies on miR-21-related combination markers.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Begg's funnel plots for the assessment of publication bias in the meta-analysis for prognosis
A. Funnel plot of the studies for DFS. B. Funnel plot of the studies for OS.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International journal of cancer. 2015;136:E359–386. - PubMed
    1. Castells A. Choosing the optimal method in programmatic colorectal cancer screening: current evidence and controversies. Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology. 2015;8:221–233. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pourhoseingholi MA. Increased burden of colorectal cancer in Asia. World journal of gastrointestinal oncology. 2012;4:68–70. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–30. - PubMed
    1. Walther A, Johnstone E, Swanton C, Midgley R, Tomlinson I, Kerr D. Genetic prognostic and predictive markers in colorectal cancer. Nature reviews Cancer. 2009;9:489–499. - PubMed