4.7 Review

Urinary miRNAs as a Diagnostic Tool for Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review

Journal

BIOMEDICINES
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10112766

Keywords

miRNAs; bladder cancer; biomarker; diagnosis; urine; supernatant; pellet; sediment; extracellular vesicle

Funding

  1. Ministero della Salute on the Ricerca Corrente funds
  2. [RRC-2022-23680785]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review analyzes the effectiveness of urine miRNAs as diagnostic markers for bladder cancer. Although there were high-quality studies, the results were quite heterogeneous and no consistent miRNA signature was found.
Bladder cancer is the 10th most common cancer type worldwide. Cystoscopy represents the gold standard for bladder cancer diagnosis, but this procedure is invasive and painful, hence the need to identify new biomarkers through noninvasive procedures. microRNAs (miRNAs) are considered to be promising diagnostic molecules, because they are very stable in biological fluids (including urine) and easily detectable. This systematic review analyses the power of urine miRNAs as bladder cancer diagnostic markers. We conducted this systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A total of 293 records related to miRNAs and their diagnostic significance in BC were retrieved from the PubMed and Embase databases. A systematic search of the literature was performed, and a total of 25 articles (N = 4054 participants) were identified and reviewed. Although many of the selected studies were of high scientific quality, the results proved to be quite heterogeneous, because we did not identify a univocal consensus for a specific miRNA signature but only isolated the signatures. We did not identify a univocal consensus for a specific diagnostic miRNA signature but only isolated the signatures, some of them with better diagnostic power compared to the others.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available