Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 695-701

Computed tomography-guided lung biopsy: A meta-analysis of low-dose and standard-dose protocols


1 Department of Oncology, Binzhou People's Hospital, Binzhou, China
2 Department of Radiology, Xuzhou Central Hospital, Xuzhou, China
3 Department of Interventional Vascular Surgery, Binzhou People's Hospital, Binzhou, China

Date of Submission31-Aug-2020
Date of Decision20-Jan-2021
Date of Acceptance04-May-2021
Date of Web Publication9-Jul-2021

Correspondence Address:
Rong Hua
Xuzhou Central Hospital, 199 South Jiefang Road, Xuzhou 221009
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1274_20

Rights and Permissions
 > Abstract 


Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare the relative diagnostic utility of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and standard-dose computed tomography (SDCT)-guided lung biopsy approaches.
Materials and Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies published through August 2020. Data pertaining to endpoints including technical success, diagnostic performance, operative time, radiation dose, and complications, were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v5.3.
Results: Three retrospective analyses and three randomized controlled trials, were included. The studies included 1977 lung lesions across 1927 patients who underwent LDCT-guided lung biopsy, and 887 lung lesions across 879 patients who underwent SDCT-guided lung biopsy. No significant differences were observed between these LDCT and SDCT groups with respect to the rates of technical success (99.0% vs. 99.5%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.82, P = 0.35,), diagnostic yield (79.6% vs. 76.2%, OR: 0.93, P = 0.47), diagnostic accuracy (96.1% vs. 96.1%, OR: 0.93, P = 0.69), operative time (mean difference [MD]: 1.04, P = 0.30), pneumothorax (19.9% vs. 21.3%, OR: 0.92, P = 0.43) or hemoptysis (4.6% vs. 5.8%, OR: 1.14, P = 0.54). Patients in the LDCT group received a significantly lower radiation dose (MD: ‒209.87, P < 0.00001) than patients in the SDCT group. Significant heterogeneity was observed with respect to the operative duration and radiation dose endpoints (I2 = 84% and 100%, respectively).
Conclusions: Relative to SDCT-guided lung biopsy, an LDCT-guided approach is equally safe and can achieve comparable diagnostic efficacy while exposing patients to lower doses of radiation.

Keywords: Biopsy, low-dose, lung, tomography


How to cite this article:
Zhang P, Liu JM, Zhang YY, Hua R, Xia FF, Shi YB. Computed tomography-guided lung biopsy: A meta-analysis of low-dose and standard-dose protocols. J Can Res Ther 2021;17:695-701

How to cite this URL:
Zhang P, Liu JM, Zhang YY, Hua R, Xia FF, Shi YB. Computed tomography-guided lung biopsy: A meta-analysis of low-dose and standard-dose protocols. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 29];17:695-701. Available from: https://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2021/17/3/695/321008




 > Introduction Top


Computed tomography (CT)-guided lung biopsy is a standard approach for diagnosing lung nodules and masses that can achieve diagnostic accuracy rates exceeding 90%.[1],[2],[3],[4] However, CT analyses expose patients to radiation, which substantially increases their risk for cancer development at a rate proportional to the cumulative radiation dosage received.[5],[6],[7] Unlike most forms of diagnostic CT imaging, CT-guided biopsy approaches necessitate repeated CT imaging to facilitate lesion localization, needle tip adjustment, and evaluation of patients for potential procedure-related complications. CT-guided interventions may be associated with markedly elevated radiation doses relative to standard diagnostic CT imaging techniques.

To decrease intraoperative exposure to high levels of radiation, low-dose CT (LDCT) versions of many interventional procedures have been developed,[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] particularly in LDCT-guided lung biopsy strategies.[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] However, LDCT parameters have not been consistent across prior studies; as such, bias may exist in the reporting or interpretation of the relative safety and efficacy of this diagnostic approach. To definitively establish the safety and diagnostic utility of LDCT-guided lung biopsy, it is essential that large population studies comparing standard-dose CT (SDCT)-and LDCT-guided lung biopsy be conducted.

Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to develop evidence-based guidelines that differentiate between LDCT- and SDCT-guided lung biopsy approaches with respect to diagnostic performance, radiation dose, and complication rates.


 > Materials and Methods Top


The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the PRISMA extension for network meta-analyses were used to guide the design and execution of the present meta-analysis.[16]

Study selection

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all relevant studies published through August 2020 using the following search strategy: ((((computed tomography [Title/Abstract]) OR (CT [Title/Abstract])) AND (low dose [Title/Abstract])) AND ((lung [Title/Abstract]) OR (pulmonary [Title/Abstract]))) AND (biopsy [Title/Abstract]).

Studies eligible for inclusion in the present analysis were those meeting the following criteria: (a) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies pertaining to LDCT-guided and SDCT-guided lung biopsy, and (b) studies that had been published in English.

Studies were excluded from this analysis if they were: (a) noncomparative studies; (b) animal studies; or (c) reviews.

Data extraction

Two authors independently extracted all data from the included studies, with any discrepancies being resolved by the corresponding author. Data extracted from the included studies included baseline data (first author, year, country, study design, and quality scores) and patient baseline data (age, lesion size, and biopsy-related data).

Quality assessment

The quality of all included RCTs was evaluated using the 8-point Jadad composite score.[17] Scores ranged from 0 to 7, and a score of ≥4 points was indicative of a high-quality study with a low risk of bias. The quality of non-RCTs was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, with studies being awarded up to 9 points.[18] High-quality non-RCTs with a low risk of bias were those that achieved a score of ≥5 points.

Endpoints

The following endpoints were included in the present analysis: (a) technical success; (b) diagnostic performance; (c) operative time; (d) radiation dose; and (e) complications.

Lung biopsies were technically successful when sufficient samples were obtained to permit diagnostic analyses. The diagnostic performance included diagnostic yield and accuracy, which corresponded to biopsy-based definitive diagnoses as a fraction of total lesions and accurate diagnoses of malignancies or benign lesions as a fraction of all diagnostic determinations, respectively.[19] The radiation dose was presented with dose-length product (DLP).

Statistical analyses

RevMan v. 5.3 was used for all statistical testing. For dichotomous variables, pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, whereas continuous variables were analyzed using pooled estimates of mean difference (MD) values with corresponding 95% CIs. Study heterogeneity was assessed using X2 tests and I2 tests, with I2 >50% indicating significant heterogeneity. When significant heterogeneity among studies was detected with respect to a specific endpoint, a random-effects model was used for data analyses. Otherwise, fixed-effects models were used. The sources of heterogeneity were identified through subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and the risk of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.


 > Results Top


Study characteristics

Our initial search strategy identified 549 potentially relevant studies, of which 6 were ultimately included in the final meta-analysis [Figure 1]. Hence, three RCTs[11],[14],[15] and 3 retrospective studies[10],[12],[13] were evaluated [Table 1]. Only one RCT was ranked asf high quality,[11] whereas all three retrospective studies were ranked as high quality.
Figure 1: The flowchart of this study

Click here to view
Table 1: Baseline data of the 9 studies

Click here to view


These studies included 1977 lung lesions across 1927 patients who had undergone LDCT-guided lung biopsy, and 887 lung lesions across 879 patients who had undergone SDCT-guided lung biopsy. Data pertaining to the patient baseline data, CT scanning parameters, and needle types are compiled in [Table 2].
Table 2: Characteristics of the included studies

Click here to view


Technical success

Data pertaining to technical success were obtained from three studies.[11],[13],[14] Similar rates of technical success were observed in the SDCT and LDCT groups [99.0% vs. 99.5%, OR: 1.82, P = 0.35, [Figure 2]a]. No significant heterogeneity was detected among studies with respect to technical success (I2 = 0%; P = 0.91).
Figure 2: The pooled results of (a) technical success, (b) diagnostic yield, (c) diagnostic accuracy, (d) operative time, and (e) radiation dose between two groups, (f) pneumothorax rates, (g) hemoptysis rates

Click here to view


Diagnostic yield

Data pertaining to diagnostic yield rates were obtained from four studies.[10],[11],[12],[13] Similar diagnostic yield rates were observed when comparing the SDCT and LDCT groups [79.6% vs. 76.2%, OR: 0.93, P = 0.47, [Figure 2]b]. No significant heterogeneity was detected among studies with respect to the diagnostic yield (I2 = 21%; P = 0.29).

Diagnostic accuracy

Data pertaining to diagnostic accuracy were obtained from 4 studies.[11],[13],[14],[15] Similar diagnostic accuracy was observed when comparing the SDCT and LDCT groups [96.1% vs. 96.1%, OR: 0.93, P = 0.69, [Figure 2]c]. No significant heterogeneity was detected among studies with respect to diagnostic accuracy (I2 = 0%; P = 0.76).

Operative time

Two of the included studies reported data pertaining to operative time.[10],[11] There were no significant differences in operative time between the LDCT and SDCT groups [MD: 1.04, P = 0.30, [Figure 2]d]. Significant heterogeneity was detected with respect to the operative time (I2 = 84%; P = 0.01). However, as only two studies reported data pertaining to this endpoint, sensitivity analyses were not conducted.

Radiation dose

All studies reported data pertaining to the DLP for analyzed patients. The DLP was significantly lower for patients in the LDCT group relative to patients in the SDCT group [MD: ‒209.87, P < 0.00001, [Figure 2]e]. Significant heterogeneity was detected among included studies with respect to the radiation dose (I2 = 100%; P < 0.00001). Sensitivity analyses suggested that removing individual studies had no impact on the detected heterogeneity.

Pneumothorax

Data pertaining to pneumothorax rates were obtained from 5 studies.[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] Similar rates of pneumothorax were observed between the SDCT and LDCT groups [19.9% vs. 21.3%, OR: 0.92, P = 0.43, [Figure 2]f]. No significant heterogeneity was detected among studies with respect to the pneumothorax (I2 = 0%; P = 0.81).

Hemoptysis

Data pertaining to hemoptysis rates were obtained from 4 studies.[11],[13],[14],[15] Similar rates of hemoptysis were observed between the SDCT and LDCT groups [4.6% vs. 5.8%, OR: 1.14, P = 0.54, [Figure 2]g]. No significant heterogeneity was detected among studies with respect to hemoptysis (I2 = 0%; P = 0.87).

Subgroup analyses

We conducted the subgroup analyses based on the CT-guided biopsy for lung nodules [Table 3]. Two studies reported the data of CT-guided biopsy for lung nodules.[11],[14]
Table 3: Meta-analytic pooled results based on the computed tomography-guided biopsy for lung nodules

Click here to view


Four endpoints could be pooled based on the subgroup analyses. Similar rates of diagnostic accuracy, pneumothorax, and hemoptysis were observed between the SDCT and LDCT groups (P = 0.66, 0.52, and 0.85, respectively). The DLP was significantly lower for patients in the LDCT group relative to the SDCT group (P < 0.00001). Significant heterogeneity was only detected with respect to the endpoint of radiation dose (I2 = 100%).

Publication bias

Funnel plots did not reveal any evidence of potential publication bias with respect to these analyzed study endpoints.


 > Discussion Top


In the present meta-analysis, the relative utility, diagnostic performance, safety, and radiation dosages of LDCT- and SDCT-guided lung biopsy were compared. In pooled analyses, technical success rates were high (>99%) and comparable for both of these diagnostic approaches, thus suggesting that the LDCT protocol did not adversely impact the lung biopsy procedure.

We were unable to analyze the image quality associated with these two diagnostic approaches, as image quality assessment strategies were inconsistent across the included studies. However, prior reports indicate that LDCT protocols can degrade image quality.[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] Unlike conventional diagnostic imaging approaches, lung biopsy, however, does not require the assessment of specific lesion features in detail.

Diagnostic performance is a critical endpoint when evaluating lung biopsy procedures. Diagnostic yield can be used to assess the ability to make a definitive biopsy-based diagnosis,[19] whereas diagnostic accuracy refers to the reliability of the resultant biopsy results.[20],[21],[22],[23] We found that diagnostic yield and accuracy were comparable between the LDCT and SDCT groups. The pooled diagnostic accuracy rates in both groups were extremely high (up to 96.1%), which is in line with rates published in prior studies of CT-guided lung biopsy approaches (90%–96%).[1],[24] These data may be attributable to the following factors: (a) rates of technical success were high in both the LDCT and SDCT groups, and (b) core needle biopsy approaches were used in all included studies.

One of the included RCTs also indicated that the scanning protocol was not a risk factor associated with diagnostic failure.[11] When comparing LDCT and SDCT for spine biopsy procedures, Shpilberg et al.[25] similarly revealed comparable diagnostic yield rates between the two groups (P = 0.6017).

Radiation dose is a key endpoint in studies of LDCT procedures, and is generally presented in the form of DLP values. In the present meta-analysis, we found that LDCT approaches were associated with significantly lower radiation doses, although significant heterogeneity was observed among the included studies with respect to this endpoint. However, we were unable to identify sources of heterogeneity in subgroups or sensitivity analyses in the present study, which may be attributable to the different CT parameters that were used by the included studies.[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]

Two of these three studies did not provide any details pertaining to the utilized scanning parameters.[10],[12] In the study conducted by Lee et al.,[13] the tube voltage only decreased from 120 kV to 100 kV for LDCT procedures, thus limiting the scope of radiation dose reduction. Despite these inconsistencies, we believe that LDCT procedures significantly reduce patient exposure to radiation during a lung biopsy.

Rates of biopsy-related complications were assessed by the pooling rates of hemoptysis and pneumothorax between groups in the present study. Rates of these complications were comparable between the LDCT and SDCT groups, which indicates that reducing the effective radiation dose was not associated with reduction in the safety of CT-guided lung biopsy procedures.

The subgroup analyses indicated that LDCT-guided lung biopsy could provide the similar diagnostic accuracy and safety with a significant lower radiation dose for lung nodules when compared to SDCT-guided. However, the data of CT-guided lung nodule biopsy could be only extracted from 2 studies.[11],[14] Further studies regarding to LDCT-guided biopsy for lung nodules are still required.

Kim et al.[26] previously reported the use of a CT fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsy approach as a means of decreasing the rates of procedure-associated complications. However, both patients and operators were exposed to significantly higher radiation doses than typically associated with conventional CT-guided lung biopsies.[26]

There are numerous limitations to the present meta-analysis. For one, several of the included studies were retrospective, which introduces selection bias. In addition, two of the three included RCTs were of low quality.[14],[15] As additional high-quality RCTs are published in the future, we will conduct updated meta-analyses to validate and expand upon these findings. We detected significant heterogeneity among studies with respect to some of the endpoints in this analysis. While sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to identify the sources of heterogeneity, additional high-quality studies are required to fully elucidate them. It is also important to note that the included studies were focused on a range of lung lesion types. As such, future analyses of specific lesion types such as lung nodules are needed.


 > Conclusions Top


Relative to SDCT-guided lung biopsy, LDCT-guidance can achieve comparable diagnostic and safety outcomes while effectively lowering the amount of radiation to which patients are exposed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 > References Top

1.
Li Y, Wang T, Fu YF, Shi YB, Wang JY. Computed tomography-guided biopsy for sub-centimetre lung nodules: Technical success and diagnostic accuracy. Clin Respir J 2020;14:605-10.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Li QK, Ding YK, Liu Y, Xia FF, Li L, Fu YF. Diagnostic yield of computed tomography-guided percutaneous lung biopsy in patients with prior nondiagnostic transbronchial biopsy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2020;44:305-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Fu YF, Li GC, Cao W, Wang T, Shi YB. Computed tomography fluoroscopy-guided versus conventional computed tomography-guided lung biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2020;44:571-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Tian P, Wang Y, Li L, Zhou Y, Luo W, Li W. CT-guided transthoracic core needle biopsy for small pulmonary lesions: Diagnostic performance and adequacy for molecular testing. J Thorac Dis 2017;9:333-43.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Johnson JN, Hornik CP, Li JS, Benjamin DK Jr, Yoshizumi TT, Reiman RE, et al. Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimation in children with heart disease. Circulation 2014;130:161-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:849-57.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Mettler FA Jr., Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: A catalog. Radiology 2008;248:254-63.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Park BK. Low-dose CT protocols for guiding radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of small renal cell carcinomas. Int J Hyperthermia 2018;34:877-82.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Sarti M, Brehmer WP, Gay SB. Low-dose techniques in CT-guided interventions. Radiographics 2012;32:1109-19.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Frisch BK, Slebocki K, Mammadov K, Puesken M, Becker I, Maintz D, et al. Implementation of ultra-low-dose lung protocols in CT-guided lung biopsies: Feasibility and safety in the clinical setting. J Int Med Res 2017;45:2101-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Fu YF, Li GC, Xu QS, Shi YB, Wang C, Wang T. Computed tomography-guided lung biopsy: A randomized controlled trial of low-dose versus standard-dose protocol. Eur Radiol 2020;30:1584-92.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Kallianos KG, Elicker BM, Henry TS, Ordovas KG, Nguyen J, Naeger DM. Instituting a low-dose CT-guided lung biopsy protocol. Acad Radiol 2016;23:1130-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Lee HN, Lee SM, Choe J, Lee SM, Chae EJ, Do KH, et al. Diagnostic performance of CT-guided percutaneous transthoracic core needle biopsy using low tube voltage (100 kVp): Comparison with conventional tube voltage (120 kVp). Acta Radiol 2018;59:425-33.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Li C, Liu B, Meng H, Lv W, Jia H. Efficacy and radiation exposure of ultra-low-dose chest CT at 100 kVp with tin filtration in CT-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy for small pulmonary lesions using a third-generation dual-source CT scanner. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2019;30:95-102.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Meng XX, Kuai XP, Dong WH, Jia NY, Liu SY, Xiao XS. Comparison of lung lesion biopsies between low-dose CT-guided and conventional CT-guided techniques. Acta Radiol 2013;54:909-15.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65-94.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-2.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Cook DA, Reed DA. Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education. Acad Med 2015;90:1067-76.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Lee HN, Yun SJ, Kim JI, Ryu CW. Diagnostic outcome and safety of CT-guided core needle biopsy for mediastinal masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2020;30:588-99.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Capasso R, Nizzoli R, Tiseo M, Pedrazzi G, Brunese L, Rotondo A, et al. Extra-pleuric coaxial system for CT-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of small (≤20 mm) lung nodules: A novel technique using multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images. Med Oncol 2017;34:17.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Tosi D, Mendogni P, Carrinola R, Palleschi A, Rosso L, Bonaparte E, et al. CT-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of solitary pulmonary nodules under 15 mm in diameter: Time for an afterthought? J Thorac Dis 2019;11:724-31.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Fu YF, Jiang LH, Wang T, Li GC, Cao W, Shi YB. Nonspecific benign pathological results on computed tomography-guided lung biopsy: A predictive model of true negatives. J Cancer Res Ther 2019;15:1464-70.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Liu J, Huang W, Wu Z, Wang Z, Ding X. The application of computed tomography-guided percutaneous coaxial biopsy combined with microwave ablation for pulmonary tumors. J Cancer Res Ther 2019;15:760-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Li GC, Fu YF, Cao W, Shi YB, Wang T. Computed tomography-guided percutaneous cutting needle biopsy for small (≤ 20mm) lung nodules. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e8703.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Shpilberg KA, Delman BN, Tanenbaum LN, Esses SJ, Subramaniam R, Doshi AH, et al. Radiation dose reduction in CT-guided spine biopsies does not reduce diagnostic yield. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2243-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Kim GR, Hur J, Lee SM, Lee HJ, Hong YJ, Nam JE, et al. CT fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsy versus conventional CT-guided lung biopsy: A prospective controlled study to assess radiation doses and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol 2011;21:232-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

  >Abstract>Introduction>Materials and Me...>Results>Discussion>Conclusions>Article Figures>Article Tables
  In this article
>References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed98    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded6    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]