Diagnostic value of double low-dose targeted perfusion CT imaging for the diagnosis of invasive and preinvasive pulmonary ground-glass nodules: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the diagnostic value of bubble lucency, interface, lobulated margin and spiculation in distinguishing early invasive and preinvasive intrapulmonary ground-glass nodules (GGNs) using evidence-based meta-analysis methods. Dual low-dose targeted perfusion computed tomography (CT) imaging is controversial in the diagnosis of invasive and preinvasive ground-glass nodules. Different studies have different views and opinions. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a systematic review of this subject in the form of meta-analysis to guide clinical diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library and Embase were searched for recent documentation on the diagnostic value of different signs in invasive and preinvasive pulmonary GGNs. CT imaging signs of bubble lucency, speculation, interface, lobulated margin, and spiculation were used as diagnostic references to discriminate pre‐invasive and invasive disease. The sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves, and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate diagnostic efficiency. RESULTS: The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity using bubble lucency as a reference of invasive ground-glass opacity (GGO) discrimination was 0.33 (0.24–0.44) and 0.74 (0.62–0.83) respectively. For interface, lobulated margin, and speculation, the diagnostic sensitivity were 0.30 (0.21–0.41), 0.49 (0.39–0.60) and 0.22 (0.14–0.33); and the specificity were 0.83 (0.74–0.89), 0.66 (0.49–0.80) and 0.86 (0.67–0.95). The pooled ROC curve was drawn by sensitivity against 1-specificity using Stata version 15.0. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) values were 0.53, 0.60, 0.58, and 0.43 for bubble lucency, speculation, lobulated margin, and pleural indentation of GGO for discriminating pre‐invasive and invasive disease. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic value of a single CT imaging sign of GGO, such as bubble lucency, speculation, interface, lobulated margin, and spiculation is limited for discriminating pre‐invasive and invasive disease because of low sensitivity, specificity, and AUC.