Diagnostic value of urinary survivin as a biomarker for bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies

13Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: This study is a meta-analysis and aims to determine the value of urinary survivin for detecting bladder cancer (BC) on the basis of preceding statistical performance and to compare their diagnostic value. Materials and methods: Considering that the urinary survivin data were from both RNA and protein levels, the key words “bladder cancer” AND “survivin” and “bladder cancer” AND “survivin RNA” were used; and PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify relevant articles. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by QUADAS-2. Data were analyzed by STATA 12.0 and Meta-disc v.1.4 software package. A random-effects model was used and subgroup analysis was carried out to identify possible sources of heterogeneity. Results: Nine articles for survivin protein test with 789 patients and 684 controls, and 12 articles for survivin RNA test with 880 patients and 922 controls were identified. The results showed that the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.73, 0.84), specificity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.79, 0.92) of the survivin protein test for bladder cancer, and the sensitivity and specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.79, 0.88) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89, 0.97) of the survivin RNA test. The AUC of the two approaches was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86, 0.91) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92, 0.96), respectively. Conclusions: The survivin protein and survivin RNA both had great potential as biomarkers for BC detection, and survivin RNA showed higher accuracy than survivin protein on BC diagnosis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Liang, Z., Xin, R., Yu, Y., Wang, R., Wang, C., & Liu, X. (2018). Diagnostic value of urinary survivin as a biomarker for bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. World Journal of Urology, 36(9), 1373–1381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2285-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free