Biomarkers for detecting malignant pleural mesothelioma: Protocol for a reanalysis of published data based on systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy

Our plain-English summary of Biomarkers for detecting malignant pleural mesothelioma: Protocol for a reanalysis of published data based on systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, by X. Zan, Y. Wang, J. Shi, et al (Medicine, 2019).

The study

• Authors: X. Zan, Y. Wang, J. Shi, L. Zhao, Y. Zhao, R. Liu, Y. Zhou, Y. Wan, Cancer Biomarker Assessment Working Group
• Journal: Medicine
• Published: 2019;98(24):e16028
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly invasive tumor caused primarily by asbestos exposure. In recent decades, the incidence of MPM has shown an increasing trend, posing a great threat to human health. Although there is currently no effective way to treat MPM, patients can survive for more than 5 years if the tumor is removed early. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the diagnostic value of biomarkers for diagnosing MPM. However, no studies have been conducted to analyze the quality of these SRs and it remains unclear which biomarker is the excellent diagnostic test. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and reanalyze the published data based on SRs to find the optimal biomarker for the early diagnosis of MPM.

Methods: A systematic search will be performed in PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science to identify SRs reporting value of biomarkers for detecting MPM. We will evaluate the risk of bias of the included SRs according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) instrument. Standard pairwise meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison will be used to compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers.

Results: The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Conclusion: This study will reanalyze the published data based on SRs to find a biomarker with the superior diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of MPM.

Ethics And Dissemination: Ethics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is an overview based on published systematic reviews.

Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019125880.

In plain English

This article is a study protocol. It describes a planned study and reports no results. The authors planned an overview of published systematic reviews that pooled data on how accurately biomarkers, used alone or in combination, detect malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). They describe MPM as a tumor caused primarily by asbestos exposure, but asbestos exposure itself was not studied. The article states that the authors searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase.com and Web of Science for relevant reviews from their start dates to February 2019. The authors planned to rate the methodological quality of each included review with a tool called AMSTAR-2. They then planned to reanalyze the data from the original studies in those reviews using pairwise meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparisons, with the aim of comparing biomarkers and finding the one with the best diagnostic performance for MPM. The authors stated that the results would be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Study protocol for an overview (reanalysis) of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. It plans quality appraisal with the AMSTAR-2 instrument, pairwise meta-analysis, and adjusted indirect comparisons. No results are reported.
• Who was studied: Published systematic reviews of biomarkers for detecting malignant pleural mesothelioma, identified from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase.com and Web of Science from inception to February 2019
• Exposure: Not an exposure study. The tests assessed were single or combined biomarkers used to diagnose MPM. Asbestos is mentioned only as background.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors reported no findings. They stated that the study will reanalyze published data from systematic reviews to find the biomarker with superior diagnostic performance for MPM, and that results would be submitted for publication.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Lung cancer, Mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Biomarker, Pleural Mesothelioma, Systematic Review, Asbestos Exposure, Meta-Analysis.

Related studies

• WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres and of the effect of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on pneumoconiosis — D. Mandrioli, V. Schlünssen, et al. (2018)
• Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes in men with mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis testis: analysis of published case-series data — J.B. Grogg, J.N. Fronzaroli, et al. (2021)
• Validity of the Lymphocyte Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay (L-CBMN) as biomarker for human exposure to chemicals with different modes of action: A synthesis of systematic reviews — M. Kirsch-Volders, M. Fenech, et al. (2018)
• Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers in the Rational Assessment of Mesothelioma (DIAPHRAGM) study: protocol of a prospective, multicentre, observational study — S. Tsim, C. Kelly, et al. (2016)
• Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of the MSLN gene products, mesothelin and megakaryocyte potentiating factor, as biomarkers for mesothelioma in pleural effusions and serum — J. Creaney, S. Sneddon, et al. (2013)
• A liquid biopsy for detecting circulating mesothelial precursor cells: A new biomarker for diagnosis and prognosis in mesothelioma — B.T.V. Duong, L. Wu, et al. (2020)

Browse more research in Medicine, or return to medical research.