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
. 2020 Jan;99(3):e18581.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018581.

Diagnostic value of various liquid biopsy methods for pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yuzhou Zhu  1   2 , Hao Zhang  3 , Nan Chen  4 , Jianqi Hao  4 , Hongyu Jin  4 , Xuelei Ma  1   5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Diagnostic value of various liquid biopsy methods for pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yuzhou Zhu et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Liquid biopsy is a novel method for cancer diagnosis, which has been applied in lung and breast cancers, demonstrating high diagnostic value. However, clinical value of it in pancreatic cancer (PC) remains to be verified. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate overall diagnostic value of various liquid biopsy methods (circulating tumor DNA, circulating tumor cells and exosomes) in detecting PC.

Methods: We comprehensively searched relevant studies in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science without time limitation according to PRISMA. Data necessary for reconstructing a 2 × 2 table was calculated from the original articles. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated by QUADAS-2. Statistical analysis including was performed by the software Meta-Disc version 1.4, and STATA 14.2.

Results: A total of 19 studies including 1872 individuals were included in this meta-analysis. In which, 7 were studies about ctDNA, 7 were on CTCs and 6 were about exosomes (Sefrioui D, studied diagnostic accuracy of both ctDNA and CTCs, with no common patients in these 2 groups). The pooled sensitivity estimates for ctDNA, CTCs and exosomes in detecting PC with their 95% confidential intervals (95% CI) were 0.64 (95%CI 0.58-0.70), 0.74 (95%CI 0.68-0.79) and 0.93 (95%CI 0.90-0.95), respectively. The pooled specificity estimates were 0.92(95%CI 0.88-0.95), 0.83 (95%CI 0.78-0.88) and 0.92 (95%CI 0.88-0.95), respectively. The area under curve (AUC) of the sROC for ctDNA, CTCs and exosomes in detecting PC were 0.9478, 0.8166, and 0.9819, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity and AUC of the sROC curve for overall liquid biopsy in detecting PC were 0.80 (95%CI 0.77-0.82), 0.89 (95%CI 0.87-0.91) and 0.9478, respectively.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirmed that liquid biopsy had high diagnostic value in detecting PC. In ctDNA, CTCs and exosomes these 3 subgroups, exosomes showed highest sensitivity and specificity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow chart of the literature selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Quality assessment of studies by Quadas-2 evaluation tool. (A) Risk of bias graph. (B) Risk of summary.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots of the diagnostic value for overall liquid biopsy in detecting pancreatic cancer. (A) Sensitivity. (B) Specificity. (C) positive likelihood ratio. (D) negative likelihood ratio. (E) Diagnostic odds ratio. (F) SROC curve.
Figure 3 (Continued)
Figure 3 (Continued)
Forest plots of the diagnostic value for overall liquid biopsy in detecting pancreatic cancer. (A) Sensitivity. (B) Specificity. (C) positive likelihood ratio. (D) negative likelihood ratio. (E) Diagnostic odds ratio. (F) SROC curve.
Figure 3 (Continued)
Figure 3 (Continued)
Forest plots of the diagnostic value for overall liquid biopsy in detecting pancreatic cancer. (A) Sensitivity. (B) Specificity. (C) positive likelihood ratio. (D) negative likelihood ratio. (E) Diagnostic odds ratio. (F) SROC curve.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plots of the diagnostic value for ctDNA in detecting pancreatic cancer. (A) Sensitivity. (B) Specificity. (C) positive likelihood ratio. (D) negative likelihood ratio. (E) Diagnostic odds ratio. (F) SROC curve.
Figure 4 (Continued)
Figure 4 (Continued)
Forest plots of the diagnostic value for ctDNA in detecting pancreatic cancer. (A) Sensitivity. (B) Specificity. (C) positive likelihood ratio. (D) negative likelihood ratio. (E) Diagnostic odds ratio. (F) SROC curve.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plots of the diagnostic value for overall exosomes in detecting pancreatic cancer. (A) Sensitivity. (B) Specificity. (C) positive likelihood ratio. (D) negative likelihood ratio. (E) Diagnostic odds ratio. (F) SROC curve.
Figure 5 (Continued)
Figure 5 (Continued)
Forest plots of the diagnostic value for overall exosomes in detecting pancreatic cancer. (A) Sensitivity. (B) Specificity. (C) positive likelihood ratio. (D) negative likelihood ratio. (E) Diagnostic odds ratio. (F) SROC curve.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of the diagnostic value for overall CTCs in detecting pancreatic cancer. (A) Sensitivity. (B) Specificity. (C) positive likelihood ratio. (D) negative likelihood ratio. (E) Diagnostic odds ratio. (F) SROC curve.
Figure 6 (Continued)
Figure 6 (Continued)
Forest plot of the diagnostic value for overall CTCs in detecting pancreatic cancer. (A) Sensitivity. (B) Specificity. (C) positive likelihood ratio. (D) negative likelihood ratio. (E) Diagnostic odds ratio. (F) SROC curve.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Result of Deeks funnel test.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sefrioui D, Blanchard F, Toure E, et al. Diagnostic value of CA19.9, circulating tumour DNA and circulating tumour cells in patients with solid pancreatic tumours. Br J Cancer 2017;117:1017–25. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:7–30. - PubMed
    1. Neoptolemos JP, Palmer DH, Ghaneh P, et al. Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017;389:1011–24. - PubMed
    1. Stathis A, Moore MJ. Advanced pancreatic carcinoma: current treatment and future challenges. Nature reviews. Clin Oncol 2010;7:163–72. - PubMed
    1. Singh S, Tang SJ, Sreenarasimhaiah J, et al. The clinical utility and limitations of serum carbohydrate antigen (CA19-9) as a diagnostic tool for pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:2491–6. - PubMed