430P Direct Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Between Autofluorescence Bronchoscopy (AFB) and AFB Combined with White Light Bronchoscopy (AFB + WLB) for Lung Cancer and Precancerous Lesions: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
J. Zhang,J. Wu,Y. Yang,H. Liao,Z. Xu,Z. Liang,J. Huang,L. Jiang,X. Zou,Y. Chen,W. Liang,J. He
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv532.14
IF: 51.769
2015-01-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:Aim/Background: For diagnosing lung cancerous and precancerous lesions, autofluorescence bronchoscopy (AFB) presented considerably high sensitivity but low specificity, which may be improved when AFB was combined with white light brochoscopy (AFB + WLB). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance between AFB and AFB + WLB directly. Methods: Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library and Ovid were searched from inception to Mar 20, 2015, for elegible studies containing sufficient data from both of tehcniques to construct 2 × 2 table with confirmation by histopathology. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were estimated by random-effect model. Quality assessment and heterogeneity were assessed. Results: 7 comparative studies involving with 904 patients and 2740 biopsy specimens were included. The summary sensitivity, specificity, DOR and AUC of AFB were 88% (95%CI 65%-97%), 63% (49-75), 12 (3-54) and 77% (73-81) respectively, and those of AFB + WLB were 90% (77-96), 54% (39-68), 11 (4-34) and 78% (74-81). In heterogeneity assessment, study quality (according to QUADAS-2) was indicated as the effect on AFB + WLB data, corresponding P value was 0.01 and I2 was 78% (51-100). However, lower specificity of AFB + WLB (vs AFB) was presented and no significant difference (P < 0.05) for comparison existed among studies with high or moderate&low quality. Same situation was shown in all results of summary and exploratory subgroup analysis.Tabled 1Subgroup AnalysisHistopathologyTechSen (%)95%CI (%)PSpe (%)95%CI (%)PINV- > SEVA8650-1000.2398980-970.629A + W9162-1007958-99INV- > MODA9586-1000.1516345-810.178A + W9687-1006040-79CIS- > MODA7434-1000.1095230-750.140A + W7743-1004923-74ASDA7520-1000.5974617-750.173A + W9163-100237-39INV = Invasive carcinoma CIS = Carcinoma in situ SEV = Severe dysplasia MOD = Moderate dysplasia ASD = Angiogenic Squamous Dysplasia. Open table in a new tab INV = Invasive carcinoma CIS = Carcinoma in situ SEV = Severe dysplasia MOD = Moderate dysplasia ASD = Angiogenic Squamous Dysplasia. Conclusions: Insufficient evidence indicated the diagnostic performance of AFB + WLB superior to AFB alone for lung cancerous and precancerous lesions. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.