Jie Zhang, Chenhui Li, Yu An, Bing Wang, Guowei Liang
{"title":"SDC2 和 SEPT9 甲基化检测在早期检测结直肠癌中的比较分析:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Jie Zhang, Chenhui Li, Yu An, Bing Wang, Guowei Liang","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2024.1460233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative diagnostic efficacy of Syndecan-2(SDC2) and Septin-9(SEPT9) in the early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify available publications up to October 2024. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis were performed using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and corresponding meta-regressions focusing on sample source, number of patients, region, study design, and methylated detection methods were conducted. Intra-group and inter-group heterogeneity were assessed by Cochrane Q and I<sup>2</sup> statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven articles involving 1,913 CRC patients and 2,851 healthy people were included in the meta-analysis. The sensitivity of SDC2 was similar compared to SEPT9 for CRC patients (0.67 vs. 0.71, <i>p</i> = 0.61), SDC2 has a similar specificity in comparison to SEPT9 for CRC patients (0.90 vs. 0.91, <i>p</i> = 0.86). In subgroup analysis, stool SDC2 was similar compared to stool SEPT9 for CRC patients (sensitivity of 0.81 vs. 0.80, <i>p</i> = 0.92; specificity of 0.93 vs. 0.91, <i>p</i> = 0.73), plasma SDC2 was similar compared to plasma SEPT9 for CRC patients (sensitivity of 0.57 vs. 0.72, <i>p</i> = 0.27; specificity of 0.90 vs. 0.89, <i>p</i> = 0.89). In the subgroup analysis of clinical staging for colorectal cancer (CRC), the results indicate that there is no significant difference in sensitivity between the two markers for both early (0.7 vs. 0.67, <i>p</i> = 0.64) and advanced (0.76 vs. 0.70, <i>p</i> = 0.23) stages of CRC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our head-to-head comparison meta-analysis, it was found that SDC2 and SEPT9 have similar sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. However, this result may be influenced by high heterogeneity and further confirmation of this finding is needed through large-scale prospective studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"11 ","pages":"1460233"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11666333/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of SDC2 and SEPT9 methylation tests in the early detection of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jie Zhang, Chenhui Li, Yu An, Bing Wang, Guowei Liang\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fmed.2024.1460233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative diagnostic efficacy of Syndecan-2(SDC2) and Septin-9(SEPT9) in the early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify available publications up to October 2024. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis were performed using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and corresponding meta-regressions focusing on sample source, number of patients, region, study design, and methylated detection methods were conducted. Intra-group and inter-group heterogeneity were assessed by Cochrane Q and I<sup>2</sup> statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven articles involving 1,913 CRC patients and 2,851 healthy people were included in the meta-analysis. The sensitivity of SDC2 was similar compared to SEPT9 for CRC patients (0.67 vs. 0.71, <i>p</i> = 0.61), SDC2 has a similar specificity in comparison to SEPT9 for CRC patients (0.90 vs. 0.91, <i>p</i> = 0.86). In subgroup analysis, stool SDC2 was similar compared to stool SEPT9 for CRC patients (sensitivity of 0.81 vs. 0.80, <i>p</i> = 0.92; specificity of 0.93 vs. 0.91, <i>p</i> = 0.73), plasma SDC2 was similar compared to plasma SEPT9 for CRC patients (sensitivity of 0.57 vs. 0.72, <i>p</i> = 0.27; specificity of 0.90 vs. 0.89, <i>p</i> = 0.89). In the subgroup analysis of clinical staging for colorectal cancer (CRC), the results indicate that there is no significant difference in sensitivity between the two markers for both early (0.7 vs. 0.67, <i>p</i> = 0.64) and advanced (0.76 vs. 0.70, <i>p</i> = 0.23) stages of CRC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our head-to-head comparison meta-analysis, it was found that SDC2 and SEPT9 have similar sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. However, this result may be influenced by high heterogeneity and further confirmation of this finding is needed through large-scale prospective studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"1460233\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11666333/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1460233\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1460233","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative analysis of SDC2 and SEPT9 methylation tests in the early detection of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Purpose: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative diagnostic efficacy of Syndecan-2(SDC2) and Septin-9(SEPT9) in the early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC).
Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify available publications up to October 2024. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis were performed using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and corresponding meta-regressions focusing on sample source, number of patients, region, study design, and methylated detection methods were conducted. Intra-group and inter-group heterogeneity were assessed by Cochrane Q and I2 statistics.
Results: Eleven articles involving 1,913 CRC patients and 2,851 healthy people were included in the meta-analysis. The sensitivity of SDC2 was similar compared to SEPT9 for CRC patients (0.67 vs. 0.71, p = 0.61), SDC2 has a similar specificity in comparison to SEPT9 for CRC patients (0.90 vs. 0.91, p = 0.86). In subgroup analysis, stool SDC2 was similar compared to stool SEPT9 for CRC patients (sensitivity of 0.81 vs. 0.80, p = 0.92; specificity of 0.93 vs. 0.91, p = 0.73), plasma SDC2 was similar compared to plasma SEPT9 for CRC patients (sensitivity of 0.57 vs. 0.72, p = 0.27; specificity of 0.90 vs. 0.89, p = 0.89). In the subgroup analysis of clinical staging for colorectal cancer (CRC), the results indicate that there is no significant difference in sensitivity between the two markers for both early (0.7 vs. 0.67, p = 0.64) and advanced (0.76 vs. 0.70, p = 0.23) stages of CRC.
Conclusion: In our head-to-head comparison meta-analysis, it was found that SDC2 and SEPT9 have similar sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. However, this result may be influenced by high heterogeneity and further confirmation of this finding is needed through large-scale prospective studies.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate
- the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions
- the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines
- the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities
- access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide
- addressing the grand health challenges around the world