Combination of DNA ploidy analysis and miR-21 or miR-24 in screening malignant pleural effusion

Liu, Chongmei; Huang, Liuyan; Zhang, Xuechun; Yang, Juan

doi:10.1093/icvts/ivx327

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2018, a study based on 20 MPEs and 20 BPEs analyzed the diagnostic value of miR-21 and miR-24 in MPE. The AUCs of these two microRNAs were approximately 0.87 (112).…”

Section: Cell-free Micrornamentioning

confidence: 95%

Pleural biomarkers in diagnostics of malignant pleural effusion: a narrative review

Zhang¹,

Li²,

Lippi³

et al. 2021

Transl Lung Cancer Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although cytology and pleural biopsy of pleural effusion (PE) are the gold standards for diagnosing malignant pleural effusion (MPE), these tools' diagnostic accuracy is plagued by some limitations such as low sensitivity, considerable inter-observer variation and invasiveness. The assessment of PE biomarkers may hence be seen as an objective and non-invasive diagnostic alternative in MPE diagnostics. In this review, we summarize the characteristics and diagnostic accuracy of available PE biomarkers, including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), carbohydrate antigens 125 (CA125), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), a fragment of cytokeratin 19 (CYFRA 21-1), chitinase-like proteins (CLPs), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its soluble receptor, endostatin, calprotectin, cancer ratio, homocysteine, apolipoprotein E (Apo-E), B7 family members, matrix metalloproteinase (MMPs) and tissue-specific inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs), reactive oxygen species modulator 1 (Romo1), tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and monocytes, epigenetic markers (e.g., cell-free microRNA and mRNA). We summarized the evidence from systematic review and meta-analysis for traditional tumor markers' diagnostic accuracy. According to the currently available evidence, we conclude that the traditional tumor markers have high specificity (around 0.90) but low sensitivity (around 0.50). The diagnostic accuracy of novel tumor markers needs to be validated by further studies. None of these tumor biomarkers would have sufficient diagnostic accuracy to confirm or exclude MPE when used alone. A multi-biomarker strategy, also encompassing the use of artificial intelligence algorithms, may be a valuable perspective for improving the diagnostic accuracy of MPE.

show abstract

“…In 2018, a study based on 20 MPEs and 20 BPEs analyzed the diagnostic value of miR-21 and miR-24 in MPE. The AUCs of these two microRNAs were approximately 0.87 (112).…”

Section: Cell-free Micrornamentioning

confidence: 95%

Pleural biomarkers in diagnostics of malignant pleural effusion: a narrative review

Zhang¹,

Li²,

Lippi³

et al. 2021

Transl Lung Cancer Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 2 The most common cause of malignant pleural effusions is lung cancer, followed by breast cancer. 3 Ovarian cancer is the most common cause of malignant peritoneal effusion, 4 which is detected at diagnosis in two-thirds of cases. By contrast, cancer indicated by pericardial effusion is less common and is detected in only about 2% to 30% of patients with cancer at time of autopsy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been shown to be a sensitive and reliable technique for evaluating DNA content and proliferation of tumors. 3 Because background mesothelial cells are usually diploid, the presence of aneuploid cells may indicate malignancy in serous fluid. DNA aneuploidy (content abnormality) determined by image cytometry (ICM) is internationally accepted as a marker of malignant cell transformation, which is the cytometric equivalent of chromosomal aneuploidy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Study of Liquid-Based Cytology and DNA Image Cytometry in the Diagnosis of Serous Effusion

Wang

et al. 2020

Technol Cancer Res Treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Liquid-based cytology is one of the most useful methods to diagnose a patient with serous effusion, especially when malignancy is suspected. As an alternative to the use of liquid-based cytology only, the serous effusion can be further processed using the technique of DNA image cytometry, which may augment diagnostic utility. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yields of liquid-based cytology, DNA image cytometry, and both in combination, regardless of serous-effusion etiology. Methods: We conducted a descriptive study on patients with serous effusions from July 2016 to June 2018. All samples were submitted for liquid-based cytology and DNA image cytometry techniques. We compared the results of cytopathological studies to the final diagnoses. Results: For a total of 798 samples, final diagnoses included 412 (51.6%) malignancies, 280 (35.1.%) inflammatory diseases, and 106 (13.3%) transudative serous effusions. Liquid-based cytology had a more sensitive diagnostic yield than DNA image cytometry did (38.8% vs 30.7%; P < .05), but the combination of both had a higher yield (43.7%; P < .05) compared with that of liquid-based cytology alone. For the 412 malignant serous effusions, diagnostic yields of liquid-based cytology and DNA image cytometry were 73.8% and 59.5%, respectively. The difference in sensitivity was significant ( P < .05). Combined liquid-based cytology + DNA image cytometry improved diagnostic yield to 83.3% ( P < .05). However, both liquid-based cytology and DNA image cytometry had low diagnostic yields for inflammatory diseases and transudative serous effusions. Conclusion: In serous effusion, liquid-based cytology’s diagnostic performance is better than that of DNA image cytometry. Application of both techniques can significantly increase diagnostic yield.

show abstract

Diagnostic utility of pleural cell-free nucleic acids in undiagnosed pleural effusions

Zhao

Cao

Han

et al. 2022

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pleural effusion (PE) is a common sign caused by various disorders. Microbiology, histology and cytology are reference standards for these disorders. However, these diagnostic tools have limitations, including invasiveness, high cost, long turnaround time, and observer-dependent. Soluble biomarkers in pleural fluid (PF) are promising diagnostic tools because they are mininvasive, economical, and objective. Recent studies have revealed that some cell-free nucleic acids (e.g., DNA, mRNA, microRNA, and lncRNA) in PF are potential diagnostic markers for many disorders. Here, we review the performance of PF cell-free nucleic acids for differentiating and stratification of PE.

show abstract

Combination of DNA ploidy analysis and miR-21 or miR-24 in screening malignant pleural effusion

Abstract: ChiCTR-TRC-14004719.

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

Pleural biomarkers in diagnostics of malignant pleural effusion: a narrative review

Pleural biomarkers in diagnostics of malignant pleural effusion: a narrative review

A Comparative Study of Liquid-Based Cytology and DNA Image Cytometry in the Diagnosis of Serous Effusion

Diagnostic utility of pleural cell-free nucleic acids in undiagnosed pleural effusions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About