-
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2022Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to...
BACKGROUND
Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care.
DESIGN
(1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives.
DATA SOURCES
For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used.
REVIEW METHODS
For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed.
RESULTS
People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents ( = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research.
LIMITATIONS
The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet.
CONCLUSIONS
Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia).
FUTURE WORK
Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 26, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: United States; Adult; Child; Male; Humans; Female; Celiac Disease; Longitudinal Studies; Prospective Studies; Skin Neoplasms; Immunoglobulin A; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36321689
DOI: 10.3310/ZUCE8371 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Nov 2022The current diagnostic criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are diverse and controversial, leading to delayed diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The current diagnostic criteria for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are diverse and controversial, leading to delayed diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate and unify their diagnostic accuracy and the threshold selection of serum and synovial routine tests for PJI at an early stage.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases for retrospective or prospective studies which reported preoperative-available assays (serum, synovial, or culture tests) for the diagnosis of chronic PJI among inflammatory arthritis (IA) or non-IA populations from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2022. Threshold effective analysis was performed on synovial polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN%), synovial white blood cell (WBC), serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) to find the relevant cut-offs.
RESULTS
Two hundred and sixteen studies and information from 45,316 individuals were included in the final analysis. Synovial laboratory-based α-defensin and calprotectin had the best comprehensive sensitivity (0.91 [0.86-0.94], 0.95 [0.88-0.98]) and specificity (0.96 [0.94-0.97], 0.95 [0.89-0.98]) values. According to the threshold effect analysis, the recommended cut-offs are 70% (sensitivity 0.89 [0.85-0.92], specificity 0.90 [0.87-0.93]), 4100/μL (sensitivity 0.90 [0.87-0.93], specificity 0.97 [0.93-0.98]), 13.5 mg/L (sensitivity 0.84 [0.78-0.89], specificity 0.83 [0.73-0.89]), and 30 mm/h (sensitivity 0.79 [0.74-0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.72-0.83]) for synovial PMN%, synovial WBC, serum CRP, and ESR, respectively, and tests seem to be more reliable among non-IA patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The laboratory-based synovial α-defensin and synovial calprotectin are the two best independent preoperative diagnostic tests for PJI. A cut off of 70% for synovial PMN% and tighter cut-offs for synovial WBC and serum CRP could have a better diagnostic accuracy for non-IA patients with chronic PJI.
Topics: Humans; alpha-Defensins; Arthritis, Infectious; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; C-Reactive Protein; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Leukocyte L1 Antigen Complex; Prospective Studies; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Retrospective Studies; Synovial Fluid
PubMed: 36181336
DOI: 10.1111/os.13500 -
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2022Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare autoimmune disorder caused by specific autoantibodies at the neuromuscular junction. MG is classified by the antigen specificity of... (Review)
Review
Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare autoimmune disorder caused by specific autoantibodies at the neuromuscular junction. MG is classified by the antigen specificity of these antibodies. Acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibodies are the most common type (74-88%), followed by anti-muscle specific kinase (MuSK) and other antibodies. While all these antibodies lead to neuromuscular transmission failure, the immuno-pathogenic mechanisms are distinct. Complement activation is a primary driver of AChR antibody-positive MG (AChR+ MG) pathogenesis. This leads to the formation of the membrane attack complex and destruction of AChR receptors and the postsynaptic membrane resulting in impaired neurotransmission and muscle weakness characteristic of MG. Broad-based immune-suppressants like corticosteroids are effective in controlling MG; however, their long-term use can be associated with significant adverse effects. Advances in translational research have led to the development of more directed therapeutic agents that are likely to alter the future of MG treatment. Eculizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits the cleavage of complement protein C5 and is approved for use in generalized MG. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology of MG; the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of eculizumab, as well as the practical guidelines for its use in MG; future studies exploring the role of eculizumab in different stages and subtypes of MG subtypes; the optimal duration of therapy and its discontinuation; the characterization of non-responder patients; and the use of biomarkers for monitoring therapy are highlighted. Based on the pathophysiologic mechanisms, emerging therapies and new therapeutic targets are also reviewed.
PubMed: 35855752
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S266031 -
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis Sep 2022As a chronic systemic autoimmune disease of undetermined etiology, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a complex pathogenesis, which involves multiple proteins and cytokines.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
As a chronic systemic autoimmune disease of undetermined etiology, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a complex pathogenesis, which involves multiple proteins and cytokines. The 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria facilitate early diagnosis of RA with reduced specificity when compared to the 1987 ACR criteria. Hence, it is imperative to identify novel serological inflammatory indicators and targets, in order to explain the complex regulatory network of RA. The present review discusses the associations of various inflammatory factors with RA and its underlying mechanism. Besides, the review also provides a novel insight into the clinical treatment of RA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
According to the PRISMA guidelines, databases like Web of Science, Google-Scholar, Pubmed and Scopus were systematically searched for articles from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2022 using The following 2 keywords: "rheumatoid arthritis", "Inflammatory cytokines", "ILs", "serum amyloid protein A", "matrix metalloproteinase 3", "RANKL", "Glucose-6-phosphoisomerase", "Anti-keratin antibody", "1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3".
RESULTS
Indicators like MMPs, ILs, glucose-6-phosphate isomerase (GPI), anti-keratin antibody (AKA) and receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) are the current hotspots in the efficacy research of RA. The present review suggests that ILs are highly expressed in the serum and synovial tissues of RA patients. By targeted inhibition of ILs with inhibitor application, precise RA treatment can be achieved.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on these results, it can be concluded that inflammatory factors have certain guiding significance in the diagnosis and efficacy evaluation of RA. However, the mechanisms of interactions among them are rather complex, which deserve further exploration.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Autoantibodies; Cytokines; Early Diagnosis; Humans
PubMed: 35838016
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24576 -
Journal of Medical Virology Jan 2023We reviewed the literature on the importance of selected anti-high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) antibodies (namely, 16/18 and early oncoproteins E6 and E7) as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We reviewed the literature on the importance of selected anti-high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) antibodies (namely, 16/18 and early oncoproteins E6 and E7) as potential serological markers for early detection of individuals at high risk of cervical cancer. We searched for studies in PubMed and Embase databases published from 2010 to 2020 on antibodies against HR-HPV E6 and E7 early proteins and cervical cancer. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for HPV16 and HPV18 antibodies were calculated using a bivariate hierarchical random-effects model. A total of 69 articles were identified; we included three studies with 1550 participants. For the three HPV16/18 E6 and E7 antibody tests, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based assays had a sensitivity of 18% for detecting CIN2+ (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15-21) and a specificity of 96% (95% CI: 92-98), for slot-blot, sensitivity was 28.9% (95% CI: 23.3-35.1) and specificity was 72% (95% CI: 66.6-77.0) for detecting CIN2+, and for multiplex HPV serology assay based on a glutathione S-transferase, sensitivity was 16% (95% CI: 8.45-28.6) and specificity was 98% (95% CI: 97-99) for detecting invasive cervical cancer. HR-HPV16/18 E6 and E7 serological markers showed high specificity, but sensitivity was suboptimal for the detection of cervical cancer in either population screening settings or as point-of-care screening tests.
Topics: Female; Humans; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Papillomavirus Infections; Human papillomavirus 16; Human papillomavirus 18; Oncogene Proteins, Viral; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Papillomavirus E7 Proteins; Papillomaviridae
PubMed: 35641882
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27900 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2022With the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic, new technologies are being implemented for more rapid, scalable, and sensitive diagnostics. The implementation of... (Review)
Review
With the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic, new technologies are being implemented for more rapid, scalable, and sensitive diagnostics. The implementation of microfluidic techniques and their amalgamation with different detection techniques has led to innovative diagnostics kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, antigens, and nucleic acids. In this review, we explore the different microfluidic-based diagnostics kits and how their amalgamation with the various detection techniques has spearheaded their availability throughout the world. Three other online databases, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, were referred for articles. One thousand one hundred sixty-four articles were determined with the search algorithm of microfluidics followed by diagnostics and SARS-CoV-2. We found that most of the materials used to produce microfluidics devices were the polymer materials such as PDMS, PMMA, and others. Centrifugal force is the most commonly used fluid manipulation technique, followed by electrochemical pumping, capillary action, and isotachophoresis. The implementation of the detection technique varied. In the case of antibody detection, spectrometer-based detection was most common, followed by fluorescence-based as well as colorimetry-based. In contrast, antigen detection implemented electrochemical-based detection followed by fluorescence-based detection, and spectrometer-based detection were most common. Finally, nucleic acid detection exclusively implements fluorescence-based detection with a few colorimetry-based detections. It has been further observed that the sensitivity and specificity of most devices varied with implementing the detection-based technique alongside the fluid manipulation technique. Most microfluidics devices are simple and incorporate the detection-based system within the device. This simplifies the deployment of such devices in a wide range of environments. They can play a significant role in increasing the rate of infection detection and facilitating better health services.
PubMed: 35629317
DOI: 10.3390/life12050649 -
BMJ Global Health May 2022The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 has been carefully measured and analysed in high-income countries, whereas there has been no systematic analysis of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 has been carefully measured and analysed in high-income countries, whereas there has been no systematic analysis of age-specific seroprevalence or IFR for developing countries.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the literature to identify all COVID-19 serology studies in developing countries that were conducted using representative samples collected by February 2021. For each of the antibody assays used in these serology studies, we identified data on assay characteristics, including the extent of seroreversion over time. We analysed the serology data using a Bayesian model that incorporates conventional sampling uncertainty as well as uncertainties about assay sensitivity and specificity. We then calculated IFRs using individual case reports or aggregated public health updates, including age-specific estimates whenever feasible.
RESULTS
In most locations in developing countries, seroprevalence among older adults was similar to that of younger age cohorts, underscoring the limited capacity that these nations have to protect older age groups.Age-specific IFRs were roughly 2 times higher than in high-income countries. The median value of the population IFR was about 0.5%, similar to that of high-income countries, because disparities in healthcare access were roughly offset by differences in population age structure.
CONCLUSION
The burden of COVID-19 is far higher in developing countries than in high-income countries, reflecting a combination of elevated transmission to middle-aged and older adults as well as limited access to adequate healthcare. These results underscore the critical need to ensure medical equity to populations in developing countries through provision of vaccine doses and effective medications.
Topics: Aged; Bayes Theorem; COVID-19; Developing Countries; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Middle Aged; Public Policy; Seroepidemiologic Studies
PubMed: 35618305
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008477 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Jun 2022Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) detected in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) sera are considered to be a biomarker for JIA-related uveitis. There is an unclear consensus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) detected in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) sera are considered to be a biomarker for JIA-related uveitis. There is an unclear consensus on the screening dilutions of ANA as detected by the HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) that should be used when predicting the risk of uveitis in JIA. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence regarding ANA prevalence and performance in JIA and JIA-associated uveitis.
METHODS
A search of five databases identified 1766 abstracts, using the search terms juvenile idiopathic arthritis; pediatric; sensitivity or diagnostic; and ANA. Studies that met inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed for the proportion of JIA patients with a positive ANA. Forest plots and pooled estimates were generated for the proportion of JIA patients and those with uveitis who were positive for ANA stratified by screening dilution. Study heterogeneity was also assessed.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria yielding 6250 unique patients; 5902 had JIA and 348 were healthy controls or were known to have other autoimmune diseases. The most reported IFA serum screening dilution was ≥1:80, representing 41.9% of patients and this screening dilution had the highest proportion of JIA ANA positivity (41.0%; 95% CI 25.0%-57.0%). ANA screening for JIA uveitis had a sensitivity and specificity of ANA at ≥1:40 of 75% (95% CI 46%-100%) and 66% (95% CI 39%-93%), respectively. There was significant study heterogeneity across both JIA subtypes and ANA titres.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there was a large variation of ANA IFA screening dilutions used for investigation of JIA, the most common dilution was 1:80. The current literature has several important deficiencies that are identified in this review requiring additional studies to inform the ANA screening dilutions of clinical value in JIA and JIA-associated uveitis.
Topics: Antibodies, Antinuclear; Arthritis, Juvenile; Child; Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect; Humans; Prevalence; Retrospective Studies; Uveitis
PubMed: 35398272
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2022.103086 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Feb 2022Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) causes febrile illnesses and has always been misdiagnosed as other viral infections, such as dengue and Zika; thus, a laboratory test is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) causes febrile illnesses and has always been misdiagnosed as other viral infections, such as dengue and Zika; thus, a laboratory test is needed. Serological tests are commonly used to diagnose CHIKV infection, but their accuracy is questionable due to varying degrees of reported sensitivities and specificities. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests currently available for CHIKV.
METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL Complete, and Scopus databases from the 1st December 2020 until 22nd April 2021. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity of serological tests against CHIKV that used whole blood, serum, or plasma were included. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability, while R software was used for statistical analyses. Thirty-five studies were included in this meta-analysis; 72 index test data were extracted and analysed. Rapid and ELISA-based antigen tests had a pooled sensitivity of 85.8% and 82.2%, respectively, and a pooled specificity of 96.1% and 96.0%, respectively. According to our meta-analysis, antigen detection tests serve as a good diagnostic test for acute-phase samples. The IgM detection tests had more than 90% diagnostic accuracy for ELISA-based tests, immunofluorescence assays, in-house developed tests, and samples collected after seven days of symptom onset. Conversely, low sensitivity was found for the IgM rapid test (42.3%), commercial test (78.6%), and for samples collected less than seven of symptom onset (26.2%). Although IgM antibodies start to develop on day 2 of CHIKV infection, our meta-analysis revealed that the IgM detection test is not recommended for acute-phase samples. The diagnostic performance of the IgG detection tests was more than 93% regardless of the test formats and whether the test was commercially available or developed in-house. The use of samples collected after seven days of symptom onset for the IgG detection test suggests that IgG antibodies can be detected in the convalescent-phase samples. Additionally, we evaluated commercial IgM and IgG tests for CHIKV and found that ELISA-based and IFA commercial tests manufactured by Euroimmun (Lübeck, Germany), Abcam (Cambridge, UK), and Inbios (Seattle, WA) had diagnostic accuracy of above 90%, which was similar to the manufacturers' claim.
CONCLUSION
Based on our meta-analysis, antigen or antibody-based serological tests can be used to diagnose CHIKV reliably, depending on the time of sample collection. The antigen detection tests serve as a good diagnostic test for samples collected during the acute phase (≤7 days post symptom onset) of CHIKV infection. Likewise, IgM and IgG detection tests can be used for samples collected in the convalescent phase (>7 days post symptom onset). In correlation to the clinical presentation of the patients, the combination of the IgM and IgG tests can differentiate recent and past infections.
Topics: Antigens, Viral; Chikungunya Fever; Chikungunya virus; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Immunoglobulin M; Sensitivity and Specificity; Serologic Tests
PubMed: 35120141
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010152 -
Carcinogenesis Apr 2022Clear cell ovarian cancer (CCOC) is a rare type of epithelial cancer often resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy. Biomarkers for the diagnosis of CCOC, and targets...
Clear cell ovarian cancer (CCOC) is a rare type of epithelial cancer often resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy. Biomarkers for the diagnosis of CCOC, and targets for immunotherapy, both have the potential to improve outcomes for patients. Our review aims to determine whether any antigens already identified in the literature could fulfil this remit. PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched and included all reported studies up until August 2021. Primary research articles on human adult females including at least 10 CCOC patients were included. Quality assurance was carried out using a modified version of the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve were extracted from each included study by two independent reviewers. Twenty-three articles were included which identified 19 gene transcripts/proteins and one antibody, with reported sensitivities between 21% and 100% and specificities between 0% and 100% for expression in CCOC and differentiation from other epithelial ovarian cancer subtypes, benign gynaecological disease or normal tissue. Twelve studies identified biomarkers with a sensitivity and specificity above 80%. A panel of biomarkers consisting of IMP3, napsin A and hepatocyte nuclear factor 1 beta achieved the highest area under the curve of 0.954. This review demonstrates that there are promising candidate biomarkers for the diagnosis of CCOC, some of which are highly specific, and have the potential to act as targets for therapy. However, larger cohort studies are needed to validate these biomarkers and their potential use in clinical practice.
Topics: Adult; Biomarkers; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35104328
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgac012