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 Aug 14;99(33):e21196.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021196.

Diagnostic value of circulating tumor DNA in molecular characterization of glioma: A meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Diagnostic value of circulating tumor DNA in molecular characterization of glioma: A meta-analysis

Yin Kang et al. Medicine (Baltimore). .

Abstract

Introduction: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has provided a minimally invasive approach for the detection of genetic mutations in glioma. However, the diagnostic value of ctDNA in glioma remains unclear. This meta-analysis was designed to investigate the diagnostic value of ctDNA, compared with the current "criterion standard" tumor tissues.

Materials and methods: The included studies were collected by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. All statistical analyses were performed using the STATA12.0 and Meta-DiSc1.4 software.

Result: A total of 11 studies comprising 522 glioma patients met our inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.73) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 23.27 (95% CI 13.69-39.53) and the area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.90 (95% CI 0.89-0.92).

Conclusions: ctDNA analysis is an effective method to detect the genetic mutation status in glioma patients with high specificity and relatively moderate sensitivity. The application of high-throughput technologies, the detection of patients with high-grade glioma, and sampling from cerebrospinal fluid could have higher diagnostic accuracy. The improvement of detection methods and more large-sample case-control studies are required in the future.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of selection process to enroll eligible studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Diagnosis quality assessments of included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool criteria.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Diagnostic accuracy forest plots. (A) Forest plots of overall sensitivity; (B) forest plots of overall specificity; (C) Forest plots of diagnostic odds ratio.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Summary receiver-operating characteristic plot for the included studies (the area under summary receiver characteristics curve was 0.90).
Figure 5
Figure 5
The receiver operative curve plot.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plots of meta-regression analyses for sensitivity and specificity.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Deek funnel plot for the evaluation of potential publication bias in the value of ctDNA in glioma patients (P = .05).

References

    1. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Liao P, et al. CBTRUS Statistical Report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2010–2014. Neuro Oncol 2017;19: suppl 5: v1–88. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nabors LB, Portnow J, Ammirati M, et al. NCCN Guidelines (R) Insights Central Nervous System Cancers, Version 1.2017 Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Ne 2017;15:1331–45. - PubMed
    1. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20. - PubMed
    1. Diaz LA, Jr, Bardelli A. Liquid biopsies: genotyping circulating tumor DNA. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:579–86. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wan JCM, Massie C, Garcia-Corbacho J, et al. Liquid biopsies come of age: towards implementation of circulating tumour DNA. Nature reviews. Cancer 2017;17:223–38. - PubMed

MeSH terms