IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0299447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meta-analysis of the accuracy for RASSF1A methylation in bronchial aspirates for the diagnosis of lung cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Xu-ping Chen
  • Shi-xu He
  • Meng-you Chen
  • Fu-bin Chen
  • Peng Wu
  • Ping Shi
  • Shi-cai Zhao
  • Ling-yan Zhao
  • Xiao-min Xiong
  • Jia Zeng

Abstract

Objective: To establish the diagnostic accuracy of RASSF1A (Ras association domain family 1 isoform) methylation using bronchial aspirates as an auxiliary method for diagnosing lung cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Studies published prior to October 30, 2022, were retrieved from the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Wan Fang databases using the keywords “lung cancer”, “RASSF1A”, “methylation”, and “bronchial aspirates”. A fixed or random effect model was used to calculate the combined sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR), negative LR, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), along with the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the area under the curve (AUC) with Q index. The threshold effect was defined by using the Spearman correlation coefficient, and the Deeks funnel plot was generated to evaluate publication bias. Results: Among the 12 trials that met the inclusion criteria, a total of 2388 participants were involved. The pooled results for the diagnosis of lung cancer were as follows, when compared to the pathological diagnosis: sensitivity of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.45–0.50), specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95–0.97), positive LR of 12.18 (95% CI: 8.96–16.55), negative LR of 0.56 (95% CI: 0.52–0.61), DOR of 24.05 (95% CI: 17.29–33.47), and AUC of 0.78 (Q index = 0.72), respectively. The sensitivity of the RASSF1A methylation assay was relatively low in a detailed subgroup analysis, fluctuating between 0.39 and 0.90, indicating a limitation in its diagnostic value for lung cancer. The RASSF1A methylation assay, on the other hand, demonstrated excellent specificity, suggesting a high exclusion value. Of note, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC for small cell lung cancer were 0.90 (0.84–0.94), 0.95 (0.94–0.97), 249.5 (103.94–598.8), and 0.98, respectively, showing that RASSF1A methylation was a promising biomarker for diagnosing small cell lung cancer with both high diagnostic and exclusion value. Furthermore, RASSF1A methylation using bronchial washings and bronchial aspirates showed a high AUC of 0.998 and 0.93, respectively, indicating excellent diagnostic performance. Conclusions: The methylation of RASSF1A in bronchial aspirates demonstrated a high level of diagnostic accuracy and has the potential to be a valuable supplementary diagnostic method, especially for identifying small cell lung cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Xu-ping Chen & Shi-xu He & Meng-you Chen & Fu-bin Chen & Peng Wu & Ping Shi & Shi-cai Zhao & Ling-yan Zhao & Xiao-min Xiong & Jia Zeng, 2024. "Meta-analysis of the accuracy for RASSF1A methylation in bronchial aspirates for the diagnosis of lung cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(7), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299447
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299447
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299447&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0299447?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299447. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.