A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing low-dose versus standard-dose computed tomography-guided lung biopsy

Abstract

Background Despite the existence of several Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) investigating Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) as a guide in lung biopsies, conclusive findings remain elusive. To address this contention, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LDCT-guided lung biopsies. Methods A comprehensive search across major databases identified RCTs comparing the effectiveness of LDCT-guided with Standard-Dose Computed Tomography (SDCT)-guided lung biopsies. Subsequently, we utilized a random-effects model meta-analysis to assess diagnostic accuracy, radiation dose, operation duration, and clinical complications associated with these procedures. Results Out of 292 scrutinized studies, six RCTs representing 922 patients were included in the final analysis. Results indicated the differences between the LDCT and SDCT groups were not different with statistical significance in terms of diagnostic accuracy rates (Intent-to-Treat (ITT) populations: Relative Risk (RR) 1.01, 95% Confidence interval [CI] 0.97–1.06, p = 0.61; Per-Protocol (PP) populations: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98–1.04, p = 0.46), incidence of pneumothorax (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75–1.35, p = 0.98), incidence of hemoptysis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.63–1.43, p = 0.80), and operation duration (minutes) (Mean Differences [MD] -0.34, 95% CI -1.67-0.99, p = 0.61). Notably, LDCT group demonstrated a lower radiation dose (mGy·cm) with statistical significance (MD -188.62, 95% CI -273.90 to -103.34, p < 0.0001). Conclusions The use of LDCT in lung biopsy procedures demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety to standard methods while notably reducing patient radiation exposure.