Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers

Halil İbrahim Pazarbaşı; Athanasia Pavlopoulou

doi:10.17827/aktd.1508230

EN TR

Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers

Abstract

The health care professionals are facing the challenge to combine and translate the findings from a plethora of, often conflicting, clinical trials or clinical studies in order to reach an evidence-based decision. The application of a meta-analytical approach in the medical field allows the systematic synthesis and assessment of the results across studies to draw conclusions about the main body of the research, such as a more accurate estimate of treatment effect or determining disease risk factors. Herein, we review the advantages and the basic steps of meta-analysis towards the identification of powerful cancer biomarkers.

Keywords

meta-analysis, cancer, biomarkers

Ethical Statement

We declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Das S, Dey MK, Devireddy R, Gartia MR. Biomarkers in Cancer Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis. Sensors (Basel). 2023;24.
2. Liu Z, Zhang Y, Niu Y, Li K, Liu X, Chen H et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic serum biomarkers of colorectal cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9:e103910.
3. Yu Y, Zeng D, Ou Q, Liu S, Li A, Chen Y et al. Association of Survival and Immune-Related Biomarkers With Immunotherapy in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis and Individual Patient-Level Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e196879.
4. Zhang L, Li L, Liu J, Wang J, Fan Y, Dong B et al. Meta-analysis of multiple hematological biomarkers as prognostic predictors of survival in bladder cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e20920.
5. Fountzilas E, Vo HH, Mueller P, Kurzrock R, Tsimberidou AM. Correlation between biomarkers and treatment outcomes in diverse cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase I and II immunotherapy clinical trials. Eur J Cancer. 2023;189:112927.
6. Shadish WR, Lecy JD. The meta-analytic big bang. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6:246-64.
7. Papakostidis C, Giannoudis PV. Meta-analysis. What have we learned? Injury. 2023;54 Suppl 3:S30-S34.
8. Forero DA, Lopez-Leon S, Gonzalez-Giraldo Y, Bagos PG. Ten simple rules for carrying out and writing meta-analyses. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019;15:e1006922.
9. Shaheen N, Shaheen A, Ramadan A, Hefnawy MT, Ramadan A, Ibrahim IA et al. Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability. Front Res Metr Anal. 2023;8:1268045.
10. Toy HI, Okmen D, Kontou PI, Georgakilas AG, Pavlopoulou A. HOTAIR as a Prognostic Predictor for Diverse Human Cancers: A Meta- and Bioinformatics Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11.

11. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338-42.
12. Nikolopoulos GK, Bagos PG, Bonovas S. Developing the evidence base for cancer chemoprevention: use of meta-analysis. Curr Drug Targets. 2011;12:1989-97.
13. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12.
14. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603-5.
15. Moskalewicz A, Oremus M. No clear choice between Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;120:94-103.
16. Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC, Dean RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011458.
17. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529-36.
18. Greco T, Zangrillo A, Biondi-Zoccai G, Landoni G. Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints. Heart Lung Vessel. 2013;5:219-25.
19. Clarke M. The QUORUM statement. Lancet. 2000;355:756-7.
20. Brooke BS, Schwartz TA, Pawlik TM. MOOSE Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses of Observational Studies. JAMA Surg. 2021;156:787-88.
21. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
22. Cuschieri S. The CONSORT statement. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13:S27-S30.
23. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344-9.
24. Sagoo GS, Little J, Higgins JP. Systematic reviews of genetic association studies. Human Genome Epidemiology Network. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e28.
25. Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Meta-analysis methods for genome-wide association studies and beyond. Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14:379-89.
26. Szumilas M. Explaining odds ratios. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;19:227-9.
27. Ranganathan P, Aggarwal R, Pramesh CS. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Odds versus risk. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6:222-4.
28. Zhu S, Shuai P, Yang C, Zhang Y, Zhong S, Liu X et al. Prognostic value of long non-coding RNA PVT1 as a novel biomarker in various cancers: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:113174-84.
29. Wang X, Xie L, Zhu L. Clinicopathological significance of HSP70 expression in gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21:437.
30. Sistrom CL, Garvan CW. Proportions, odds, and risk. Radiology. 2004;230:12-9.
31. Nassour AJ, Jain A, Hui N, Siopis G, Symons J, Woo H. Relative Risk of Bladder and Kidney Cancer in Lynch Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15.
32. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Risk difference, risk ratio, and odds ratio. Restor Dent Endod. 2017;42:72-76.
33. Nakamura ET, Park A, Pereira MA, Kikawa D, Tustumi F. Prognosis value of heat-shock proteins in esophageal and esophagogastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2024;16:1578-95.
34. Roberts MR, Ashrafzadeh S, Asgari MM. Research Techniques Made Simple: Interpreting Measures of Association in Clinical Research. J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139:502-11 e1.
35. Tibshirani R. A plain man's guide to the proportional hazards model. Clin Invest Med. 1982;5:63-8.
36. Fang SX, Chen C, Guo Q, Ke XX, Lu HL, Xu G. High lncSNHG15 expression may predict poor cancer prognosis: a meta-analysis based on the PRISMA and the bio-informatics analysis. Biosci Rep. 2020;40.
37. de Moraes FCA, Pereira CRM, Sano VKT, Laia EA, Stecca C, Burbano RMR. Do proton pump inhibitors affect the effectiveness of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors in advanced HR positive, HER2 negative breast cancer? A meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1352224.
38. Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ. 2001;322:1479-80.
39. Dettori JR, Norvell DC, Chapman JR. Fixed-Effect vs Random-Effects Models for Meta-Analysis: 3 Points to Consider. Global Spine J. 2022;12:1624-26.
40. Sedgwick P. Meta-analyses: what is heterogeneity? BMJ. 2015;350:h1435.
41. Cordero CP, Dans AL. Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: detecting and dealing with heterogeneity in meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:149-51.
42. Cochran WG. The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika. 1950;37:256-66.
43. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-60.
44. Richardson M, Garner P, Donegan S. Interpretation of subgroup analyses in systematic reviews: A tutorial Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health. 2019;7:192-98.
45. Bonovas S, Filioussi K, Sitaras NM. Statins are not associated with a reduced risk of pancreatic cancer at the population level, when taken at low doses for managing hypercholesterolemia: evidence from a meta-analysis of 12 studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2646-51.
46. Sedgwick P. What is publication bias in a meta-analysis? BMJ. 2015;351:h4419.
47. Lin L, Chu H. Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2018;74:785-94.
48. Jin ZC, Zhou XH, He J. Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2015;34:343-60.
49. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-34.
50. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088-101.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Services and Systems (Other)

Journal Section

Review

Authors

Halil İbrahim Pazarbaşı
0000-0002-0945-3861
Türkiye

Athanasia Pavlopoulou ^*
0000-0002-0815-3808
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

September 25, 2024

Publication Date

September 30, 2024

Submission Date

July 1, 2024

Acceptance Date

September 5, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 2024 Volume: 33 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17827/aktd.1508230

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA35MJ72ZY

APA

Pazarbaşı, H. İ., & Pavlopoulou, A. (2024). Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi, 33(3), 165-171. https://doi.org/10.17827/aktd.1508230

AMA

1.Pazarbaşı Hİ, Pavlopoulou A. Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi. 2024;33(3):165-171. doi:10.17827/aktd.1508230

Chicago

Pazarbaşı, Halil İbrahim, and Athanasia Pavlopoulou. 2024. “Application of Meta-Analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers”. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi 33 (3): 165-71. https://doi.org/10.17827/aktd.1508230.

EndNote

Pazarbaşı Hİ, Pavlopoulou A (September 1, 2024) Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi 33 3 165–171.

IEEE

[1]H. İ. Pazarbaşı and A. Pavlopoulou, “Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers”, Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 165–171, Sept. 2024, doi: 10.17827/aktd.1508230.

ISNAD

Pazarbaşı, Halil İbrahim - Pavlopoulou, Athanasia. “Application of Meta-Analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers”. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi 33/3 (September 1, 2024): 165-171. https://doi.org/10.17827/aktd.1508230.

JAMA

1.Pazarbaşı Hİ, Pavlopoulou A. Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi. 2024;33:165–171.

MLA

Pazarbaşı, Halil İbrahim, and Athanasia Pavlopoulou. “Application of Meta-Analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers”. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi, vol. 33, no. 3, Sept. 2024, pp. 165-71, doi:10.17827/aktd.1508230.

Vancouver

1.Halil İbrahim Pazarbaşı, Athanasia Pavlopoulou. Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi. 2024 Sep. 1;33(3):165-71. doi:10.17827/aktd.1508230

This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers

Application of Meta-analysis for Determining Cancer Biomarkers

Abstract

Keywords

Ethical Statement

Kanser Biyobelirteçlerinin Belirlenmesi için Meta-analizin Uygulanması

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Early Pub Date

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite