S. Odeh, Beatrice Tavelli, S. Joosten, Maureen J. Aarts, Thomas Kerkhofs, Joep G. H. van Roermund, T. Marcelissen, Leo J. Schouten, Andres Matoso, M. van Engeland, I. Samarska, K. Smits
{"title":"肾细胞癌预后 DNA 甲基化标记的系统性综述:我们在前进吗?","authors":"S. Odeh, Beatrice Tavelli, S. Joosten, Maureen J. Aarts, Thomas Kerkhofs, Joep G. H. van Roermund, T. Marcelissen, Leo J. Schouten, Andres Matoso, M. van Engeland, I. Samarska, K. Smits","doi":"10.1097/ju9.0000000000000133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n In this study, we update 2 previously published systematic reviews on prognostic DNA methylation markers for renal cell carcinoma and provide a comprehensive overview of the latest markers and methylation signatures that merit further validation.\n \n \n \n We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science including all studies published after our previous systematic review (ie, between March 2017 and December 2021). Data extraction and evaluation using the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies criteria and the level of evidence was performed for all 58 included studies. DNA methylation markers were considered promising when findings were validated in more than one study or within multiple cohorts.\n \n \n \n We identified 11 promising single DNA methylation markers (ie, RUNX3, EVI2A, HHLA2, TACSTD2, KEAP1, LAG3, NSD1, ZNF492, GPR149, LEP, and LEPR), three multimarker panels (ie, (1) RAC2, PLCB2, VAV1 and PARVG; (2) NCKAP1L, EVI2A, and BATF; and (3) GREM1, GATA5, LAD1, NEFH, and NEURL) and 5 DNA methylation signatures. Remarkably, since our previous systematic review, only part of the markers recommended for validation were evaluated in subsequent validation efforts, emphasizing the lack of validation in this field.\n \n \n \n Validation studies for prognostic DNA methylation markers have been scarce despite previously published recommendations. Nevertheless, since then, other novel DNA methylation markers or signatures have been proposed as promising biomarkers emphasizing the current focus on expanding evidence instead of further building the evidence on specific markers with the aim of clinical translation.\n","PeriodicalId":74033,"journal":{"name":"JU open plus","volume":"52 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review on Prognostic DNA Methylation Markers for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Are We Moving Forward?\",\"authors\":\"S. Odeh, Beatrice Tavelli, S. Joosten, Maureen J. Aarts, Thomas Kerkhofs, Joep G. H. van Roermund, T. Marcelissen, Leo J. Schouten, Andres Matoso, M. van Engeland, I. Samarska, K. Smits\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ju9.0000000000000133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n In this study, we update 2 previously published systematic reviews on prognostic DNA methylation markers for renal cell carcinoma and provide a comprehensive overview of the latest markers and methylation signatures that merit further validation.\\n \\n \\n \\n We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science including all studies published after our previous systematic review (ie, between March 2017 and December 2021). Data extraction and evaluation using the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies criteria and the level of evidence was performed for all 58 included studies. DNA methylation markers were considered promising when findings were validated in more than one study or within multiple cohorts.\\n \\n \\n \\n We identified 11 promising single DNA methylation markers (ie, RUNX3, EVI2A, HHLA2, TACSTD2, KEAP1, LAG3, NSD1, ZNF492, GPR149, LEP, and LEPR), three multimarker panels (ie, (1) RAC2, PLCB2, VAV1 and PARVG; (2) NCKAP1L, EVI2A, and BATF; and (3) GREM1, GATA5, LAD1, NEFH, and NEURL) and 5 DNA methylation signatures. Remarkably, since our previous systematic review, only part of the markers recommended for validation were evaluated in subsequent validation efforts, emphasizing the lack of validation in this field.\\n \\n \\n \\n Validation studies for prognostic DNA methylation markers have been scarce despite previously published recommendations. Nevertheless, since then, other novel DNA methylation markers or signatures have been proposed as promising biomarkers emphasizing the current focus on expanding evidence instead of further building the evidence on specific markers with the aim of clinical translation.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":74033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JU open plus\",\"volume\":\"52 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JU open plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ju9.0000000000000133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JU open plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ju9.0000000000000133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在本研究中,我们更新了之前发表的两篇关于肾细胞癌预后DNA甲基化标志物的系统综述,并全面概述了值得进一步验证的最新标志物和甲基化特征。 我们对PubMed、EMBASE和Web of Science进行了系统性文献检索,包括上一篇系统综述之后(即2017年3月至2021年12月之间)发表的所有研究。我们采用《肿瘤标志物预后研究报告建议》标准和证据级别对所有58项纳入研究进行了数据提取和评估。当研究结果在一项以上的研究或多个队列中得到验证时,DNA甲基化标记被认为是有前景的。 我们确定了 11 个有前景的单一 DNA 甲基化标记物(即 RUNX3、EVI2A、HHLA2、TACSTD2、KEAP1、LAG3、NSD1、ZNF492、GPR149、LEP 和 LEPR)、3 个多标记物面板(即 (1)RAC2、PLCB2、VAV1 和 PARVG;(2) NCKAP1L、EVI2A 和 BATF;以及 (3) GREM1、GATA5、LAD1、NEFH 和 NEURL)和 5 个 DNA 甲基化特征。值得注意的是,自我们之前的系统综述以来,只有部分推荐验证的标记物在随后的验证工作中进行了评估,这凸显了该领域缺乏验证。 尽管之前发表了一些建议,但针对预后DNA甲基化标记的验证研究一直很少。尽管如此,此后又有其他新型 DNA 甲基化标记或特征被提出作为有前景的生物标志物,这强调了目前的重点是扩大证据,而不是进一步建立特定标记的证据,以实现临床转化。
A Systematic Review on Prognostic DNA Methylation Markers for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Are We Moving Forward?
In this study, we update 2 previously published systematic reviews on prognostic DNA methylation markers for renal cell carcinoma and provide a comprehensive overview of the latest markers and methylation signatures that merit further validation.
We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science including all studies published after our previous systematic review (ie, between March 2017 and December 2021). Data extraction and evaluation using the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies criteria and the level of evidence was performed for all 58 included studies. DNA methylation markers were considered promising when findings were validated in more than one study or within multiple cohorts.
We identified 11 promising single DNA methylation markers (ie, RUNX3, EVI2A, HHLA2, TACSTD2, KEAP1, LAG3, NSD1, ZNF492, GPR149, LEP, and LEPR), three multimarker panels (ie, (1) RAC2, PLCB2, VAV1 and PARVG; (2) NCKAP1L, EVI2A, and BATF; and (3) GREM1, GATA5, LAD1, NEFH, and NEURL) and 5 DNA methylation signatures. Remarkably, since our previous systematic review, only part of the markers recommended for validation were evaluated in subsequent validation efforts, emphasizing the lack of validation in this field.
Validation studies for prognostic DNA methylation markers have been scarce despite previously published recommendations. Nevertheless, since then, other novel DNA methylation markers or signatures have been proposed as promising biomarkers emphasizing the current focus on expanding evidence instead of further building the evidence on specific markers with the aim of clinical translation.