Performance of Lung-RADS in different target populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Multiple lung cancer screening studies reported the performance of Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS), but none systematically evaluated its performance across different populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of Lung-RADS (versions 1.0 and 1.1) for detecting lung cancer in different populations.

METHODS

We performed literature searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases on October 21, 2022, for studies that evaluated the accuracy of Lung-RADS in lung cancer screening. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, and heterogeneity was explored in stratified and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies with 104,224 participants were included. For version 1.0 (27 studies, 95,413 individuals), pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-0.99) and pooled specificity was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92). Studies in high-risk populations showed higher sensitivity (0.98 [95% CI: 0.92-0.99] vs. 0.84 [95% CI: 0.50-0.96]) and lower specificity (0.87 [95% CI: 0.85-0.88] vs. 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.97]) than studies in general populations. Non-Asian studies tended toward higher sensitivity (0.97 [95% CI: 0.91-0.99] vs. 0.91 [95% CI: 0.67-0.98]) and lower specificity (0.88 [95% CI: 0.85-0.90] vs. 0.93 [95% CI: 0.88-0.96]) than Asian studies. For version 1.1 (4 studies, 8811 individuals), pooled sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96) and specificity was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67-0.90).

CONCLUSION

Among studies using Lung-RADS version 1.0, considerable heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity was noted, explained by population type (high risk vs. general), population area (Asia vs. non-Asia), and cancer prevalence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Meta-regression of lung cancer screening studies using Lung-RADS version 1.0 showed considerable heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity, explained by the different target populations, including high-risk versus general populations, Asian versus non-Asian populations, and populations with different lung cancer prevalence.

KEY POINTS

• High-risk population studies showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity compared with studies performed in general populations by using Lung-RADS version 1.0. • In non-Asian studies, the diagnostic performance of Lung-RADS version 1.0 tended to be better than in Asian studies. • There are limited studies on the performance of Lung-RADS version 1.1, and evidence is lacking for Asian populations.