Evidence Hub

Circulating microRNAs as Biomarkers of Radiation Exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Beata Małachowska, B. Tomasik, K. Stawiski, S. Kulkarni, C. Guha, Dipanjan Chowdhury, W. Fendler

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2020

55 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) were hypothesized to be robust and easy to measure biomarkers of radiation exposure which led to multiple studies in various clinical and experimental scenarios. We sought to identify evolutionary conserved, radiation-induced circulating miRNAs through a multi-species, integrative systematic review, and meta-analysis of miRNAs in radiation.

METHODS

The systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: XXX). We downloaded a list of studies with the query: (circulating OR plasma OR serum) AND (miRNA or microRNA) AND (radiat* OR radiotherapy OR irradiati*) from MEDLINE (103 studies), EMBASE (364 studies) and from Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (0 studies). After deleting 116 duplicates, the remaining 351 abstracts were then reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: experimental study; human, mice, rat or non-human primate study; serum or plasma miRNA expression measured before and after radiation exposure.

RESULTS

The screening procedure yielded 62 research studies. After verification, 30 articles contained data on miRNA expression change after irradiation. Thus, we obtained a database of 131 miRNAs from 96 pairwise post-/pre-irradiation comparisons reporting 2,508 fold changes of circulating miRNAs. The meta-analysis showed 28 miRNAs with significant radiation-induced change of their expression in the serum. In meta-regression analysis, 7 miRNAs - miR-150 (FC=0.40, 95%CI:0.35-0.45), miR-29a (FC=0.87, 95%CI:0.79-0.96), miR-29b…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free