Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Cancer Genetics

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1642727

This article is part of the Research TopicTransforming Cancer Treatment: The Clinical Potentials of Non-Coding RNAsView all articles

Diagnostic value of integrating salivary and blood miRNAs for pancreatic cancer detection

Provisionally accepted
  • Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, Shreveport, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most lethal malignancies due to its late-stage diagnosis and limited treatment options. Conventional diagnostic methods, such as imaging and tissue biopsy, often lack sensitivity in early-stage detection and are invasive, limiting their widespread application. There is an urgent need for non-invasive, highly accurate biomarkers to facilitate early diagnosis and improve patient outcomes. Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) have emerged as promising liquid biopsy biomarkers, offering the potential for early detection through minimally invasive methods. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of blood-and saliva-derived miRNAs in detecting pancreatic cancer. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases identified 350 relevant studies. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 27 studies with 1,496 patients were included. These studies contained 168 sub-studies, each assessing the diagnostic potential of individual miRNAs. Quality assessment was conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were analyzed to determine diagnostic performance. Results: Blood-derived miRNAs demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) and specificity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91), while saliva-derived miRNAs exhibited slightly higher sensitivity at 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90) and specificity at 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.89). The combined analysis yielded a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84-0.89) and specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.83-0.88). The area under the curve (AUC) for blood-derived miRNAs was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94), whereas saliva-derived miRNAs achieved an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95). The combined analysis resulted in an AUC of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94). Diagnostic odds ratios were 33.40 (95% CI: 17.88-62.37) for blood-derived miRNAs, 39.94 (95% CI: 28.66-55.67) for saliva-derived miRNAs, and 37.04 (95% CI: 27.66-49.60) for the combined dataset. Conclusion: Both blood-and saliva-derived miRNAs exhibit strong diagnostic performance for pancreatic cancer, with saliva-derived miRNAs demonstrating slightly higher accuracy. These findings support the potential of circulating miRNAs as non-invasive biomarkers that could address the current limitations in pancreatic cancer diagnosis. Further large-scale, well-controlled studies are warranted to confirm these results and optimize their clinical application.

Keywords: Pancreatic Cancer, MicroRNAs, Circulating biomarker, liquid biopsy, Saliva diagnostics

Received: 07 Jun 2025; Accepted: 13 Aug 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Wilson and Nonaka. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Taichiro Nonaka, Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, Shreveport, United States

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.