Diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin in adult non-neutropenic cancer patients with suspected infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background Procalcitonin (PCT) has garnered attention as a potential diagnostic biomarker for infection in cancer patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin (PCT) and to compare it with C‐reactive protein (CRP) in adult non-neutropenic cancer patients with suspected infection. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify all relevant diagnostic accuracy studies. Original articles reporting the diagnostic accuracy of PCT for infection detection in adult patients with solid or hematological malignancies were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, area under the hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic (HSROC) curve, and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PCT were 60% (95% CI [45–74%]) and 78% (95% CI [69–86%]). The diagnostic odds ratio was estimated at 5.47 (95% CI [2.86–10.46]). Three studies compared the diagnostic accuracies of PCT and CRP. The pooled sensitivity and specificity values for PCT were 57% (95% CI [26–83%]) and 75% (95% CI [68–82%]), and those for CRP were 67% (95% CI [35–88%]) and 73% (95% CI [69–77%]). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PCT and CRP did not differ significantly (p = 0.61 and p = 0.63). The diagnostic accuracy of PCT was similar to that of CRP as measured by the area under the HSROC curve (0.73, CI = 0.61–0.91 vs. 0.74, CI = 0.61–0.95, p = 0.93). Conclusion While elevated PCT levels can be indicative of potential infection, they should not be solely relied upon to exclude infection. We recommend not using the PCT test in isolation; Instead, it should be carefully interpreted in the context of clinical findings.