Jie Zhang, Chenhui Li, Yu An, Bing Wang, Guowei Liang
{"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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
目的:本荟萃分析旨在评价Syndecan-2(SDC2)和Septin-9(SEPT9)在结直肠癌(CRC)早期检测中的比较诊断效果。方法:我们检索PubMed, Embase, Web of Science和Cochrane Library数据库,以确定截至2024年10月的可用出版物。使用随机效应模型进行直接头对头比较分析。针对样本来源、患者数量、地区、研究设计和甲基化检测方法进行亚组分析和相应的元回归分析。采用Cochrane Q和I2统计方法评估组内和组间异质性。结果:11篇涉及1913例结直肠癌患者和2851名健康人群的文章被纳入meta分析。与SEPT9相比,SDC2在CRC患者中的敏感性相似(0.67 vs. 0.71, p = 0.61),与SEPT9相比,SDC2在CRC患者中的特异性相似(0.90 vs. 0.91, p = 0.86)。在亚组分析中,CRC患者的粪便SDC2与粪便SEPT9相似(敏感性为0.81比0.80,p = 0.92;特异性为0.93比0.91,p = 0.73), CRC患者血浆SDC2与血浆SEPT9相似(敏感性为0.57比0.72,p = 0.27;特异性为0.90 vs 0.89, p = 0.89)。在结直肠癌(CRC)临床分期亚组分析中,结果显示两种标志物对早期(0.7 vs. 0.67, p = 0.64)和晚期(0.76 vs. 0.70, p = 0.23) CRC的敏感性无显著差异。结论:在我们的头对头比较meta分析中,我们发现SDC2和SEPT9在结直肠癌的诊断中具有相似的敏感性和特异性。然而,这一结果可能受到高度异质性的影响,需要通过大规模的前瞻性研究进一步证实这一发现。
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