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
. 2018 Mar 21;16(1):61.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-018-1358-x.

Effectiveness of urine fibronectin as a non-invasive diagnostic biomarker in bladder cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of urine fibronectin as a non-invasive diagnostic biomarker in bladder cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Fan Dong et al. World J Surg Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: Previous researches pointed out that the measurement of urine fibronectin (Fn) could be a potential diagnostic test for bladder cancer (BCa). We conducted this meta-analysis to fully assess the diagnostic value of urine Fn for BCa detection.

Methods: A systematic literature search in PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and CBM was carried out to identify eligible studies evaluating the urine Fn in diagnosing BCa. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were established. We applied the STATA 13.0, Meta-Disc 1.4, and RevMan 5.3 software to the meta-analysis.

Results: Eight separate studies with 744 bladder cancer patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR were 0.80 (95%CI = 0.77-0.83), 0.79 (95%CI = 0.73-0.84), and 15.18 (95%CI = 10.07-22.87), respectively, and the area under the curve (AUC) of SROC was 0.83 (95%CI = 0.79-0.86). The diagnostic power of a combined method (urine Fn combined with urine cytology) was also evaluated, and its sensitivity and AUC were significantly higher (0.86 (95%CI = 0.82-0.90) and 0.89 (95%CI = 0.86-0.92), respectively). Meta-regression along with subgroup analysis based on various covariates revealed the potential sources of the heterogeneity and the detailed diagnostic value of each subgroup. Sensitivity analysis supported that the result was robust. No threshold effect and publication bias were found in this meta-analysis.

Conclusions: Urine Fn may become a promising non-invasive biomarker for bladder cancer with a relatively satisfactory diagnostic power. And the combination of urine Fn with cytology could be an alternative option for detecting BCa in clinical practice. The potential value of urine Fn still needs to be validated in large, multi-center, and prospective studies.

Keywords: Biomarker; Bladder cancer; Diagnosis; Meta-analysis; Urine fibronectin.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

In accordance with the ethical standards of institutional and international research committee, this article is based on previous published studies; thus, it does not contain any studies with human participants or animals.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the inclusion and exclusion of the relevant studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plots of pooled a sensitivity, b pooled specificity, c diagnostic score, d odds ratio, e positive likelihood ratio, and f negative likelihood ratio
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
SROC curve and HSROC curve of urine Fn for BCa diagnosis. SROC, summary receiver operating characteristic; HSROC, hierarchical summary receiver operator curves; AUC, area under the curve
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Fagan’s nomogram and post-test probability of urine Fn for the detection of BCa
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Deeks’ funnel plot with regression line

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:E359–E386. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21387. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pruthi RS, Baldwin N, Bhalani V, Wallen EM. Conservative management of low risk superficial bladder tumors. J Urol. 2008;179:87–90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.171. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shah JB, McConkey DJ, Dinney CP. New strategies in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: on the road to personalized medicine. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:2608–2612. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2770. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sagerman PM, Saigo PE, Sheinfeld J, Charitonowics E, Cordon-Cardo C. Enhanced detection of bladder cancer in urine cytology with Lewis X, M344 and 19A211 antigens. Acta Cytol. 1994;38:517–523. - PubMed