Telomerase activity assay for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion: A meta-analysis

Shen,Yong-Chun; Chen,Zhen-Ni; Yang,Ting; Chen,Lei; Wang,Tao; Wen,Fu-Qiang; Yi,Qun

doi:10.3892/etm.2012.623

Telomerase activity assay for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion: A meta-analysis

Authors:
- Yong-Chun Shen
- Zhen-Ni Chen
- Ting Yang
- Lei Chen
- Tao Wang
- Fu-Qiang Wen
- Qun Yi
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Division of Pulmonary Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy of China, Department of Respiratory Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China, Department of Health Education Institution, West China School of Public Health, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China
Published online on: June 26, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2012.623
Pages: 487-492

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The telomerase activity assay has been established for the detection of malignant pleural effusion (MPE), however, the overall diagnostic accuracy of the telomerase activity assay for MPE remains unclear. We performed a systematic search in the Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify published studies that have evaluated the diagnostic role of the telomerase activity assay for MPE. Sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of the telomerase activity assay in the diagnosis of MPE were pooled using the random effects models. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was used to summarize overall test performance. A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing MPE were 0.76 [95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.72-0.80] and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 5.19 (95% CI, 2.36-11.42), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.11-0.53) and the diagnostic odds ratio was 23.18 (95% CI, 6.11-87.83). The area under the SROC curve was 0.92. The telomerase activity assay plays a role in the diagnosis of MPE with a relatively high specificity. The results of a telomerase activity assay should be interpreted together with the combination of other test results and clinical findings.

View Figures

View References

1.	Light RW: Pleural effusions. Med Clin North Am. 95:1055–1070. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
2.	Bennett R and Maskell N: Management of malignant pleural effusions. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 11:296–300. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
3.	McGrath EE and Anderson PB: Diagnosis of pleural effusion: a systematic approach. Am J Crit Care. 20:119–127. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4.	Lombardi G, Zustovich F, Nicoletto MO, Donach M, Artioli G and Pastorelli D: Diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural effusion: a systematic literature review and new approaches. Am J Clin Oncol. 33:420–423. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5.	Shen YC, Liu MQ, Wan C, Chen L, Wang T and Wen FQ: Diagnostic accuracy of vascular endothelial growth factor for malignant pleural effusion. Exp Ther Med. March 14–2012.(Epub ahead of print).
6.	Shi HZ, Liang QL, Jiang J, Qin XJ and Yang HB: Diagnostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen in malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis. Respirology. 13:518–527. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7.	Liang QL, Shi HZ, Qin XJ, Liang XD, Jiang J and Yang HB: Diagnostic accuracy of tumour markers for malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis. Thorax. 63:35–41. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8.	Zvereva MI, Shcherbakova DM and Dontsova OA: Telomerase: structure, functions, and activity regulation. Biochemistry (Mosc). 75:1563–1583. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9.	Rhyu MS: Telomeres, telomerase, and immortality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 87:884–894. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10.	Chen CH and Chen RJ: Prevalence of telomerase activity in human cancer. J Formos Med Assoc. 110:275–289. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11.	Ouellette MM, Wright WE and Shay JW: Targeting telomerase-expressing cancer cells. J Cell Mol Med. 15:1433–1442. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12.	Heaphy CM and Meeker AK: The potential utility of telomere-related markers for cancer diagnosis. J Cell Mol Med. 15:1227–1238. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13.	Tangkijvanich P, Tresukosol D, Sampatanukul P, et al: Telomerase assay for differentiating between malignancy-related and nonmalignant ascites. Clin Cancer Res. 5:2470–2475. 1999.PubMed/NCBI
14.	Braunschweig R, Yan P, Guilleret I, et al: Detection of malignant effusions: comparison of a telomerase assay and cytologic examination. Diagn Cytopathol. 24:174–180. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J and Altman DG; PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6:e10000972009. View Article : Google Scholar
16.	Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C and Bossuyt PM; Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 149:889–897. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17.	Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN and Kleijnen J: Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 6:92006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18.	Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al: Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2:92002.PubMed/NCBI
19.	Moses LE, Shapiro D and Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 12:1293–1316. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20.	Deeks JJ, Macaskill P and Irwig L: The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 58:882–893. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21.	Yang CT, Lee MH, Lan RS and Chen JK: Telomerase activity in pleural effusions: diagnostic significance. J Clin Oncol. 16:567–573. 1998.PubMed/NCBI
22.	Yang Z and Xie C: Comparison of the diagnostic value of telomerase activity with CEA level in benign and malignant pleural effusions. Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 24:201–203. 2001.(In Chinese).
23.	Dikmen G, Dikmen E, Kara M, Sahin E, Doğan P and Ozdemir N: Diagnostic implications of telomerase activity in pleural effusions. Eur Respir J. 22:422–426. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24.	Lee WY: Limitations of detection of malignancy in pleural effusions using ELISA-based TRAP assay: comparison with cytological examination. Cytopathology. 16:227–232. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25.	Maneechotesuwan K, Lertworawiwat A, Tscheikuna J and Wamanuttajinda V: Comparison of telomerase activity between malignant and tuberculous pleural effusions. J Med Assoc Thai. 89(Suppl 5): S46–54. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
26.	Li GB, Wang M, Guo S, Lü Y and Wang W: Value of combined pleural effusion testing of telomerase and CEA for differential diagnosis of malignant and nonmalignant pleural effusion. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat. 15:299–300. 318:2008.
27.	Mousavi SA, Bahari R and Karimi MA: Comparison of telomerase activity in malignant and benign pleural effusions. Tanaffos. 8:17–23. 2009.
28.	Li H, Fu J, Xiu Y and Zhou Q: Diagnostic significance of combining telomerase activity with CYFRA21-1 level in differentiating malignant pleural effusion caused by lung cancer from benign pleural effusion. Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi. 13:652–654. 2010.(In Chinese).
29.	Walter SD: Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med. 21:1237–1256. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30.	Jones CM and Athanasiou T: Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis techniques in the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Ann Thorac Surg. 79:16–20. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31.	Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ and Bossuyt PM: The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 56:1129–1135. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32.	Stengel D, Bauwens K, Sehouli J, Ekkernkamp A and Porzsolt F: A likelihood ratio approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. J Med Screen. 10:47–51. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33.	Hansson M, Zendehrokh N, Ohyashiki J, et al: Telomerase activity in effusions: a comparison between telomere repeat amplification protocol in situ and conventional telomere repeat amplification protocol assay. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 132:1896–1902. 2008.
34.	Dejmek A, Yahata N, Ohyashiki K, et al: In situ telomerase activity in pleural effusions: a promising marker for malignancy. Diagn Cytopathol. 24:11–15. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35.	Song F, Khan KS, Dinnes J and Sutton AJ: Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Int J Epidemiol. 31:88–95. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI