Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer (PrC) is the second-most frequent cancer in men, its incidence is emerging globally and is the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. While diagnosis and prognosis of PrC have been studied well, the associated therapeutic biomarkers have not yet been investigated comprehensively. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the theragnostic effects of microRNA expressions on chemoresistance in prostate cancer and to analyse the utility of miRNAs as clinical theragnostic biomarkers. Methods: A systematic literature search for studies reporting miRNA expressions and their role in chemoresistance in PrC published until 2018 was collected from bibliographic databases. The evaluation of data was performed as per PRISMA guidelines for systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software. Heterogeneity between studies was analysed using Cochran’s Q test, I2 and the Tau statistic. Quality assessment of the studies was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for the methodological assessment of cohort studies. Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s bias indicator test, Orwin and classic fail-safe N test, Begg and Mazumdar rank collection test, and Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill methods. Findings: Out of 2909 studies retrieved, 79 studies were shortlisted and reviewed. A total of 17 studies met our eligibility criteria, from which 779 PrC patients and 17 chemotherapy drugs were examined, including docetaxel and paclitaxel. The majority of the drug regulatory genes reported were involved in cell survival, angiogenesis and cell proliferation pathways. We studied 42 miRNAs across all studies, out of which two miRNAs were found to be influencing chemosensitivity, while 21 were involved in chemoresistance. However, the remaining 19 miRNAs did not appear to have any theragnostic effects. Besides, the prognostic impact of the miRNAs was evaluated and had a pooled HR value of 1.960 with 95% CI (1.377–2.791). Interpretation: The observation of the current study depicts the significance of miRNA expression as a theragnostic biomarker in medical oncology. This review suggests the involvement of specific miRNAs as predictors of chemoresistance and sensitivity in PrC. Hence, the current systematic review and meta-analysis provide insight on the use of miRNA as PrC biomarkers, which can be harnessed as molecular candidates for therapeutic targeting.

Highlights

  • Prostate cancer (PrC) is the fourth-most common cancer across genders and in males is the second-most common

  • The previous meta-analysis on prostate cancer was carried out deciphering the role of miRNAs targeting the androgen receptor [63]. miRNA-21 is downregulated in our study, similar to in another report which demonstrates that the reduction in expression could inhibit the cancer growth, while its overexpression in androgen-independent prostate cancers makes them resistant to androgen ablation [64,65]

  • There is extensive anticipation regarding the use of miRNAs as a possible predictor of chemoresistance in prostate cancer as the available markers are unreliable

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Prostate cancer (PrC) is the fourth-most common cancer across genders and in males is the second-most common. Some commonly preferred treatment methods for PrC are surgery [3], chemotherapy [4], radiotherapy [5] and hormone therapy [6] Both neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapies and a variety of chemotherapeutic drugs, such as docetaxel [7], paclitaxel [8], cisplatin [9], azacytidine [10], cyclopamine [11], estramustine, trichostatin A and thapsigargin [12] are reported in various studies, while paclitaxel is the only drug approved by the FDA for the treatment of prostate cancer [13]. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the theragnostic effects of microRNA expressions on chemoresistance in prostate cancer and to analyse the utility of miRNAs as clinical theragnostic biomarkers. Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s bias indicator test, Orwin and classic fail-safe

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.