4.7 Review

Head and neck cancer biomarkers: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 542, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117280

Keywords

Individual biomarkers; Combined biomarkers; Plasma; Serum; Saliva; Tissue; Biological markers; Diagnosis; Head and neck cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic capabilities of biological markers in the plasma, serum, tissue, and saliva of patients with head and neck cancer. The results showed that combined biomarkers had higher diagnostic accuracy compared to individual biomarkers, but further studies are needed to validate these findings.
Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic capabilities of various biological markers in the plasma, serum, tissue, and saliva of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Methods: We performed manual and digital searches using specific keywords and found English-language literature published up to October 28, 2022. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, MEDLINE Complete, and EMBASE databases were used. Studies comparing biomarkers for the diagnosis of HNC versus healthy controls were evaluated. Results: Seventeen studies using varied sources of biomarkers, both individually and combined, were identified. The sensitivity and specificity of biomarkers ranged from 29.5% to 100% and 57.1% to 100%, respectively. The combined biomarkers demonstrated higher therapeutic applicability in terms of sensitivity and specificity than the individual biomarkers. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of the sensitivity/specificity for individual and combined biomarker was 534.45/1.66 and 247.41/14.62, respectively. Conclusion: Combined biomarkers may aid in the diagnosis of HNC. Further studies are required to verify the accuracy of these biomarkers.

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