4.7 Review

MicroRNA Biomarkers as Promising Tools for Early Colorectal Cancer Screening-A Comprehensive Review

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241311023

Keywords

microRNA; colorectal cancer; biomarker; screening; early detection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer globally. Early detection is crucial for better prognosis and increased survival rate. MicroRNA biomarkers have emerged as a powerful tool for CRC screening, as they are highly expressed in CRC patients and easily detectable. This review evaluates the available data on microRNAs as promising biomarkers for early CRC screening, discusses their advantages, disadvantages, and optimal study characteristics.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks as the third most prevalent cancer worldwide. Early detection of this neoplasia has proven to improve prognosis, resulting in a 90% increase in survival. However, available CRC screening methods have limitations, requiring the development of new tools. MicroRNA biomarkers have emerged as a powerful screening tool, as they are highly expressed in CRC patients and easily detectable in several biological samples. While microRNAs are extensively studied in blood samples, recent interest has now arisen in other samples, such as stool samples, where they can be combined with existing screening methods. Among the microRNAs described in the literature, microRNA-21-5p and microRNA-92a-3p and their cluster have demonstrated high potential for early CRC screening. Furthermore, the combination of multiple microRNAs has shown improved performance in CRC detection compared to individual microRNAs. This review aims to assess the available data in the literature on microRNAs as promising biomarkers for early CRC screening, explore their advantages and disadvantages, and discuss the optimal study characteristics for analyzing 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