Diagnostic Value of DAPK Methylation for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Meta-Analysis
Rattachement africain : vn. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Methylation of DAPK has been reported to play a key role in the initiation and progression of nasopharyngeal cancer. However, there are differences between the studies on it. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of DAPK promoter methylation for NPC. Method: The study method involves the systematic research of eligible studies based on criteria. The frequency, odds ratios (OR), sensitivity as well as specificity with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the effect sizes. Results: A total of 13 studies, including 1048 NPC samples and 446 non-cancerous samples, were used for the meta-analysis. The overall frequencies of DAPK methylation were 56.94% and 9.28% in NPC samples and non-cancerous samples, respectively. The association between DAPK methylation and risk of NPC was also confirmed by calculating the OR value which was 13.13 (95%CI = 54.24–40.72) based on a random-effect model (Q = 64.74; p < 0.0001; I2 = 81.47% with 95%CI for I2 = 69.39–88.78). Additionally, the study results suggest that testing for DAPK methylation in tissue samples or brushing may provide a promising method for diagnosing NPC. Conclusion: This is the first meta-analysis that provided scientific evidence that methylation of the DAPK gene could serve as a potential biomarker for diagnosis, prognosis, and early screening of NPC patients.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Diagnostic Value of DAPK Methylation for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Meta-Analysis
- Date Crossref
- 12/09/2023
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.