4.5 Review

Diagnostic DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

Journal

EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 215-226

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.07.011

Keywords

Biomarkers; Diagnosis; DNA methylation; Kidney cancer; Renal cell carcinoma; Promoter CpG island& nbsp; methylation

Funding

  1. 'Kankeronderzoekfonds Limburg' as part of Health Foundation Limburg [2018-03/KOFL]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review examined the diagnostic value of DNA methylation biomarkers for RCC, indicating a lack of independently validated biomarkers and inadequate reporting in the majority of studies.
Context: The 5-yr survival of early-stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is approxi-mately 93%, but once metastasised, the 5-yr survival plummets to 12%, indicating that early RCC detection is crucial to improvement in survival. DNA methylation biomarkers have been suggested to be of potential diagnostic value; however, their current state of clinical translation is unclear and a comprehensive overview is lacking. Objective: To systematically review and summarise all literature regarding diag-nostic DNA methylation biomarkers for RCC. Evidence acquisition: We performed a systematic literature review of PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2019, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. Included studies were scored according to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) criteria. Forest plots were generated to summarise diagnostic performance of all biomarkers. Level of evidence (LoE) and potential risk of bias were determined for all included studies. Evidence synthesis: After selection, 19 articles reporting on 44 diagnostic DNA methylation biomarkers and 11 multimarker panels were included; however, only 15 biomarkers were independently validated. STARD scores varied from 4 to 13 out of 23 points, with a median of 10 points. Large variation in subgroups, methods, and primer locations was observed. None of the reported biomarkers exceeded LoE III, and the majority of studies reported inadequately.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available