The efficacy of Raman spectroscopy in lung cancer diagnosis: the first diagnostic meta-analysis

In recent years, many researches have explored the diagnostic value of Raman spectroscopy in multiple types of tumors. However, as an emerging clinical examination method, the diagnostic performance of Raman spectroscopy in lung cancer remains unclear. Relevant diagnostic studies published before 1 June 2020 were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and WanFang databases. After the literature was screened, two authors extracted the data from eligible studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Obtained data were pooled and analyzed using Stata 16.0, Meta-DiSc 1.4, and RevMan 5.3 software. Fourteen diagnostic studies were eligible for the pooled analysis which includes 779 patients. Total pooled sensitivity and specificity of Raman spectroscopy in diagnosing lung cancer were 0.92 (95% CI 0.87-0.95) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.88-0.97), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 15.2 (95% CI 7.5-30.9), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05-0.14), and the area under the curve was 0.97 (95 % CI 0.95-0.98). Subgroup analysis suggested that the sensitivity and specificity of RS when analyzing human tissue, serum, and saliva samples were 0.95 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), 0.97 (95% CI 0.89-0.99), 0.88 (95% CI 0.80-0.93), 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.92), 0.91 (95% CI 0.80-0.96), and 0.95 (95% CI 0.73-0.99), respectively. No publication bias or threshold effects were detected in this meta-analysis. This initial meta-analysis indicated that Raman spectroscopy is a highly specific and sensitive diagnostic technology for detecting lung cancer. Further investigations are also needed to focus on real-time detection using Raman spectroscopy under bronchoscopy in vivo. Moreover, large-scale diagnostic studies should be conducted to confirm this conclusion.

Automated summary

The study found through meta-analysis that Raman spectroscopy has high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing lung cancer, making it a promising diagnostic technology. Analysis of different sample types showed variations in diagnostic performance, indicating the need for further research in this area.