Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) as prognostic and diagnostic biomarkers in multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Recently, emerging studies have demonstrated the utility of particular long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) as useful biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM). We systematically reviewed the literature and conducted a meta-analysis to quantify the predictive effectiveness of lnc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pathology, research and practice research and practice, 2022-01, Vol.229, p.153726-153726, Article 153726
Main Authors: Mardani, Mahta, Rashedi, Sina, Keykhaei, Mohammad, Farrokhpour, Hossein, Azadnajafabad, Sina, Tavolinejad, Hamed, Rezaei, Nima
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biomarkers, Tumor
Diagnosis
Disease-Free Survival
Humans
Long non-coding RNA
Meta-analysis
Multiple Myeloma
Multiple Myeloma - diagnosis
Multiple Myeloma - mortality
Prognosis
RNA, Long Noncoding
Survival Rate
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Recently, emerging studies have demonstrated the utility of particular long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) as useful biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM). We systematically reviewed the literature and conducted a meta-analysis to quantify the predictive effectiveness of lncRNAs in the prognosis and diagnosis of MM. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until March 24, 2021. A meta-analysis was conducted to explore the correlation between the expression of lncRNAs and prognostic endpoints, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS). Moreover, the diagnostic performance of lncRNAs in MM was investigated by calculating accuracy metrics. Overall, 43 studies were included in this systematic review, amongst which 36 studies assessed prognostic endpoints (including 5499 participants and 69 lncRNAs), and 11 studies evaluated diagnostic outcomes (with 1723 participants and 11 lncRNAs). The overexpression of CRNDE (hazard ratio (HR)= 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61, 2.34), NEAT1 (HR=1.97, 95%CI 1.36, 2.85), PVT1 (HR=1.92, 95%CI 1.25, 2.97), and TCF7 (HR=1.98, 95%CI 1.42, 2.76) was significantly associated with reduced OS. Furthermore, upregulation of PVT1 was significantly correlated with poor PFS (HR=1.86, 95%CI 1.29, 2.68). The pooled diagnostic performance of lncRNAs was as follows: sensitivity 0.78 (95%CI 0.73, 0.82), specificity 0.88 (95%CI 0.83, 0.92), and area under the curve 0.89 (95%CI 0.86, 0.92). Our results revealed the potential significance of lncRNAs in MM as diagnostic and prognostic markers, which may be the future targets for individualized therapy.
ISSN:0344-0338
1618-0631
DOI:10.1016/j.prp.2021.153726