{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031413612565445025, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017452006980802792, 'mean_word_length': 5.394052044609666, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Detection of lung cancer using multiple genetic markers—a systematic review

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, and has one of the lowest survival rates of any solid tumor. In recent years, several attempts have been conducted to improve an early or accelerated diagnosis due to better overall prognosis after therapy. The aim of this study was evaluating the use of genetic markers for diagnosis of lung cancer. This study was conducted in accordance to Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses. Three Internet sources were used to search: MEDLINE‐PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS. The databases were searched for studies conducted in the period up to and including May 10, 2011. The following inclusion criteria were applied: lung cancer studies, and the use of genetic markers for diagnosis. Studies using animal models, review articles, meta‐analyses, abstracts, conference proceedings, editorials/letters, case reports, incorrect study population, inadequate data, and cytology was not obtained, were excluded. A total of 1,901 abstracts/citations were identified for preliminary review. From 24 final selected studies, 17 referred to chromosomal markers diagnosis, eight to genes as marker, and one to both subjects. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was applied in all studies. Despite the limitations of this study, application of genetic markers to lung cancer diagnosis seems to have prognosis value irrespective of detection methodology used. FISH was the main technique applied to diagnose genetics alterations and revealed a high specificity, although some authors reported low sensitivity. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2013;41:834–842. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.