Skip to main content

Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid polymerase chain reaction for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis among high-risk patients: a diagnostic meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays are perceived to facilitate the diagnosis of fungal infections. However, due to lack of standardization, the value of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid PCR in diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) remains unclear.

Methods

We conducted a systematic meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of BAL fluid PCR in IPA diagnosis among high-risk patients. All studies involving patients at risk for IPA were included. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios of BAL fluid PCR were summarized for diagnosis of proven/probable IPA, or proven IPA only. Potential heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

Results

Forty-one studies involving 5668 patients were analyzed. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios of BAL fluid PCR for proven/probable IPA were 0.75 (95% CI = 0.67–0.81), 0.94 (95% CI = 0.90–0.96), 11.8 (95% CI = 7.7–18.1) and 0.27 (95% CI = 0.20–0.36), respectively. Whereas for proven IPA only, sensitivity and specificity were 0.91 (95% CI = 0.68–0.98) and 0.80 (95% CI = 0.74–0.85) in fourteen studies involving 2061 patients. Significant heterogeneity was present due to the underlying disease, antifungal treatment and differences in DNA extraction techniques and choice of PCR assay. Compared to patients with hematological malignancies (HM) and hematopoietic stem cell/solid organ transplantation (HSCT/SOT), sensitivity was higher in the population with disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, solid tumor, autoimmune disease with prolonged use of corticosteroids, etc. (0.88 vs. 0.68, P < 0.001), which was related to the concurrent use of antifungal prophylaxis among patients with HM and HSCT/SOT.

Conclusion

BAL fluid PCR is a useful diagnostic tool for IPA in immunocompromised patients and is also effective for diagnosing IPA in patients without HM and HSCT/SOT. Furthermore, standard protocols for DNA extraction and PCR assays should be focused on to improve the diagnostic accuracy.

Trial registration PROSPERO, registration number CRD42021239028.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) is a common opportunistic fungal infection, contributing to high mortality in immunocompromised patients. Early diagnosis of IPA in patients at high risk is essential. It is estimated that more than 200,000 cases of IPA occur every year. The mortality rate of IPA reaches over 50% even if patients are treated with antifungal therapy. Once the diagnosis is delayed or missed, the mortality can be nearly 100% [1]. Traditional diagnostic methods, including histology, cytology, and culture, are time-consuming and have low sensitivity [2, 3].

The molecular diagnostic tool polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is one of the most valuable methods used in diagnosis of respiratory pathogens such as virus and mycoplasma [4, 5]. It is also considered as a rapidly expanding technology for fast detection and accurate identification of fungi [6]. Several groups have investigated the performance of PCR from blood or serum in the diagnosis of IPA. A recent meta-analysis performed by Cruciani et al. [7] has assessed the quality of serum PCR for diagnosing IPA from 29 primary studies and concluded that serum PCR showed moderate diagnostic accuracy when used as a diagnostic test. Mengoli et al. [8] has summarized that the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of blood or serum PCR were 0.75 and 0.87. Arvanitis et al. [9] also finds the similar results.

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid is likely to be more sensitive in early diagnosis [10]. PCR from BAL fluid is recommended for screening the diagnosis of IPA in latest clinical practice guideline from official American Thoracic Society (ATS) and revised European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) definition [11, 12]. However, both guidelines mainly aim at the diagnosis of IPA in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) and hematopoietic stem cell/solid organ transplantation (HSCT/SOT). The value of BAL fluid PCR in IPA diagnosis among patients with other diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), solid tumor, pulmonary fibrosis, liver cirrhosis, diabetes, autoimmune disease with prolonged use of corticosteroids (at therapeutic doses ≥ 0.3 mg/kg for ≥ 3 weeks within the past 60 days), treatment with T-cell or B-cell immunosuppressants, ICU admission, etc., remains unclear. Due to lack of standardization, PCR assays vary with respect to DNA extraction protocols, gene targets and amplification platforms, leading to the uncertainty of diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, several randomized controlled trials (RCT) about BAL fluid PCR in IPA diagnosis have been published, and no updated meta-analysis has been done since 2012. Therefore, we performed a systematic meta-analysis of clinical trials to evaluate the accuracy of BAL fluid PCR assay for the diagnosis of IPA among high-risk patients.

Methods

Search strategy

Two investigators independently searched for relevant articles published in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases up to June 2022. Search terms contained “aspergil*”, “PCR”, “bronchoalveolar lavage”, “respiratory” and “sputum”. The syntax was as follows: ((bronchoalveolar lavage) OR (sputum) OR (respiratory)) AND (PCR) AND (aspergil*). The references of included review articles or identified trials were also checked. Searches were restricted to English language literature on human subjects. Duplicate articles identified in mentioned databases were manually deleted.

Inclusion criteria and definitions

Full-text publications using PCR on BAL fluid were included if (1) they used EORTC/MSG criteria [2, 3, 12] or similar criteria if studies were published before the publication in 2002 for the diagnosis of IPA. (2) they provided data about true-positive, false-positive, false-negative and true-negative results, and (3) the studies included immunocompromised or at-risk patients. Based on EORTC/MSG or similar criteria, patients were classified into four groups on IPA diagnosis: proven, probable, possible and no IPA. We defined the true positive cases if they were classified as proven or probable IPA. Possible IPA cases were excluded because they were considered not reliable enough in the clinical management [13].

Data collection and risk of bias assessment

The first selection was carried out on the basis of the title and abstract by two investigators. The full paper of each potentially eligible study was then obtained. Two investigators independently assessed eligible studies for inclusion. The relevant information was collected from each selected studies including: first author, year of publication, country, sample size, mean age, prevalence of IPA, percentage of patients with HM and HSCT/SOT in the study population, study design, reference standard, DNA extraction, PCR technology, primers and antifungal therapy. Disagreements between authors were resolved by consensus through group discussion. We assessed the quality of studies by the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic reviews) checklist [14] to test potential bias in all studies.

Outcome of interests

The primary outcomes of interest were the summary sensitivity and specificity of Aspergillus PCR in BAL fluid for high-risk patients. Secondly, we aimed to evaluate the effect on heterogeneity among different studies about several critical parameters, such as proportion of patients with HM and HSCT/SOT in the study population, the use of antifungal treatment at time of BAL, method of DNA extraction, PCR technology, etc.

Data analysis

The sensitivity and specificity of all studies were calculated by constructing two-by-two tables (proven or probable IPA versus possible or no IPA, proven IPA versus probable, possible or no IPA). All the tables included true-positive, false-positive, false-negative and true-negative results of Aspergillus PCR assay. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by random-effect model [15]. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) was constructed and diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve, AUC) was estimated [16]. Publication bias was assessed by using the Deeks’ regression test for asymmetry [17]. We assessed statistically heterogeneity by the employment of I2 statistic [18]. Potential heterogeneity was estimated by meta-regression and subgroup analyses [19] for sensitivity and specificity. The Pearson's r was applied to measure the linear correlation between the proportion of patients with HM and HSCT/SOT in the study population and the application of antifungal treatment. All analyses were performed using STATA software version 15 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas) with the program “midas”. P values of < 0.05 denoting statistical significance.

Results

Eligible study characteristics

The study identified 2551 references by the initial search. Eighty-two were selected based on abstract and title search. Forty-one studies, including 5668 patients, satisfied our inclusion criteria and were in the final analysis [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60] (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram. PCR Polymerase chain reaction; IPA Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis

Table 1 summarized the main characteristics of all included studies. Forty-one studies comprised 17 prospective and 24 retrospective ones, of which 6 were case–control studies. Among all studies, the prevalence of proven/probable IPA ranged from 5 to 51%. Most patients suffered HM. Twelve studies involved 1147 patients mainly with COPD, solid tumor, autoimmune disease with prolonged use of corticosteroids, treatment with T-cell or B-cell immunosuppressants, etc., rather than HM or HSCT/SOT. Fourteen studies containing 2061 patients provided data about proven IPA only. Antifungal intervention against IPA before BAL was definitely described in 20 studies. Details of PCR techniques were summarized in Table 2. Two or three different PCR methods were used in 2 studies respectively. Quality assessment is shown according to the QUADAS-2 (Additional file 1: Fig. S1).

Table 1 Main characteristics of studies included
Table 2 Technical details of the PCR methods used in the studies included

Pooled diagnostic performance for proven/probable IPA in all patients

The summary pretest probability of disease was 20%. The sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence interval for proven/probable IPA (Additional file 1: Fig. S2) were 0.75 (0.67–0.81) and 0.94 (0.90–0.96). Positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR) were 11.8 (7.7–18.1) and 0.27 (0.20–0.36). DOR was 44 (25–77). I2 was more than 50%, which indicated significant heterogeneity was present. The AUC was 0.92 (0.90–0.94) (Fig. 2). The post-test probability indicated that when pretest probability was 20%, PCR method increased the probability to 75% for IPA when the results were positive and decrease to 6% when negative (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Summary receiver operating characteristic curve of PCR from BAL fluid. The smaller regions (confidence contours) contain possible combinations of sensitivity and specificity means. Broader regions (prediction contours) indicate more uncertainty as to where the likely values of sensitivity and specificity for individual studies might arise

Fig. 3
figure 3

Fagan’s nomogram for calculating post-test probabilities in all studies. Straight edges were used to relate the pretest probability of IPA to post-test probabilities by crossing the likelihood ratio line at the point describing the obtained outcome. Solid lines extend from prevalence to PLR and dashed lines extend from prevalence to NLR

Pooled diagnostic performance for proven IPA only

Fourteen studies containing 2061 patients described sufficient data for two-by-two table about proven IPA. The pooled sensitivity, specificity (Additional file 1: Fig. S3), PLR, NLR, DOR, AUC with 95% confidence interval were 0.91 (0.68–0.98), 0.80 (0.74–0.85), 4.6 (3.4–6.1), 0.11 (0.03–0.47), 41 (9–193) and 0.89 (0.86–0.91), respectively. The sensitivity for proven IPA was better than that of proven/probable IPAs, whereas the specificity was lower.

Heterogeneity and publication bias

Univariable meta-regression and subgroup analyses were estimated for investigating the heterogeneity in all studies (Fig. 4). Subgroup analyses showed that the underlying diseases and the use of antifungal treatment had a significant impact on the diagnostic sensitivity of BAL fluid PCR. Twenty-nine studies involving patients mostly with HM and HSCT/SOT were enrolled. The summary estimates of BAL fluid for proven/probable IPA were as follows (Table 3): sensitivity 0.68 (0.58–0.76), specificity 0.94 (0.89–0.97), PLR 11.3 (6.3–20.3), NLR 0.34 (0.25–0.45), DOR 33 (16–69), AUC 0.89 (0.86–0.92). For patients with disease such as COPD, solid tumor, autoimmune disease with prolonged use of corticosteroids, treatment with T-cell or B-cell immunosuppressants, etc., the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, AUC were 0.88 (0.75–0.95), 0.92 (0.83–0.96), 11.0 (5.4–22.7), 0.13 (0.05–0.29), 88 (33–237), 0.96 (0.94–0.97). The diagnostic sensitivity of BAL fluid PCR was much higher in patients without HM and HSCT/SOT (P < 0.001). Moreover, use of antifungal agents notably lower the sensitivity of PCR. The antifungal treatment had a strong correlation with the underlying diseases. Pearson correlation coefficient between the proportion of patients with HM and HSCT/SOT in the study population and the application of antifungal treatment was 0.76 (P < 0.001).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of meta-regression and subgroup analyses for sensitivity and specificity. Ssize100: sample size > 100; Prevalence: prevalence above 15%; Country: European countries; Disease: percentage of patients with hematological malignancy above 50%; Criteria: revised EORTC/MSG criteria in 2008; Walldisruption: proteinase for cell wall disruption; DNAisolation: phenol–chloroform for DNA isolation protocol; PCR: real-time PCR; Primer: 18S rRNA primer

Table 3 Results of subgroup analyses

Besides, we found some covariates such as study types, group size, prevalence, criteria, DNA extraction protocols, PCR method and primers affected the sensitivity and/or specificity. It was shown sensitivity was lower in prospective, cohort, small group studies and those using revised EORTC/MSG criteria [3]. When DNA isolation kit was used for cell wall disruption, the specificity was a little higher and real-time PCR presented higher specificity whereas the primer 18S rRNA presented lower sensitivity than others. There was significant publication bias in all studies (Additional file 1: Fig. S4).

Discussion

The article evaluated the value of BAL fluid PCR in diagnosis of IPA. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis focusing on the diagnostic value of BAL fluid PCR for IPA patients with disease such as COPD, solid tumor, autoimmune disease with prolonged use of corticosteroids, treatment with T-cell or B-cell immunosuppressants, etc., rather than HM and HSCT/SOT. In our meta-analysis, the overall sensitivity and specificity was 0.75 and 0.94, respectively in all 41 studies. For proven IPA only, sensitivity was higher, which increased to 0.91, but specificity decreased to 0.80. Twelve studies included patients without HM and HSCT/SOT. The pooled sensitivity of BAL fluid PCR for proven/probable IPA for these 12 studies was 0.88, significantly higher than that among patients with HM or HSCT/SOT (0.68), which was related to the high frequency use of antifungal agents. Different factors containing study types, group size, prevalence, percentage of patients with HM and HSCT/SOT in the study population, use of antifungal agents, DNA extraction, PCR methods and primers were responsible for heterogeneity of included studies. Quality items had no significant influence on diagnostic characteristics. However, there was significant publication bias in our study.

Overall, our analysis showed that BAL fluid PCR was an effective test for IPA diagnosis, especially for patients without HM and HSCT/SOT. In patients with HM and HSCT/SOT, the results of specificity, DOR and AUC of PCR for proven/probable IPA diagnosis were reliable, indicating the test had a good discriminative ability. However, the sensitivity and NLR results were not satisfactory, which could increase the rate of missed diagnosis. But when patients with HM and HSCT/SOT were mainly excluded, sensitivity became higher.

To better explore the diagnostic capacity of PCR in BAL fluid, we made analysis for proven IPA separately. In contrast to the diagnosis of probable IPA depending on host, clinical and mycological factors, the criteria for proven IPA involves histopathologic, cytopathologic, direct microscopic examination or culture from sterile material [2, 3, 12], which could be considered as “gold standard” for IPA diagnosis. Consequently, the analysis for proven IPA only seems to be more objective and we gained higher sensitivity for BAL fluid PCR from proven IPA only, increasing the reliability of the diagnostic test. In addition, the decreased specificity of PCR for proven IPA may be due to the incorrect exclusion of those probable cases who were actually infected.

Significant heterogeneity was present in our analysis. Therefore, we implemented subgroup analyses and meta-regression to search for reasons behind these inconsistencies. It was found that studies comprising patients without HM and HSCT/SOT had higher sensitivity. Patients with HM and HSCT/SOT were tend to be treated with azoles prophylaxis more frequently, especially among HSCT/SOT and neutropenic patients [61], which could explain why the sensitivity was lower in studies whose percentage of patients with HM and HSCT/SOT was high. In our analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient was applied to evaluation the relationship between the proportion of patients with HM and HSCT/SOT and the application of antifungal treatment. We found a strong correlation between antifungal therapy and underlying disease. Use of empiric antifungal agents could influence the summary evaluation, which was confirmed to impact the release of Aspergillus DNA, thus lower the residual fungal burden in lung tissue and therefore diminished the sensitivity of PCR assay [62].

Fungal DNA extraction methodology was considered to be the major cause for heterogeneity [63]. Different kinds of DNA extraction methods have been applied in the studies included. The efficiency and the overall performance of wall disruption played a significant role in our analysis as the cell walls of fungi could impede the efficient lysis and liberation of DNA, generating false-negative PCR results [64]. It seemed that commercial nucleic acid extraction methods were more efficient. Besides, the use of DNA isolation mattered as well. Based on these causes, the optimal DNA extraction protocol required verification.

Aspergillus species PCR assay may be another reason for variable test performance. Many various PCR amplification protocols have been published, all of whom remain heterogeneous for they lack of standardization. The different methods led to diverse sensitivity or specificity, and we found studies using real-time PCR had better sensitivity and specificity in our analysis. However, according to the European Aspergillus PCR initiative (EAPCRI), PCR amplification was not limited and most amplification methods would provide acceptable analytical performance in combination with commercial extraction [65]. What’s more, Aspergillus gene targets varied in 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA), 28S rRNA, the intervening internal transcribed spacer (ITS)-5.8S region, mitochondrial DNA or species-specific primers. A single species, several related species or pan-fungal amplification indicated diverse sensitivity and specificity [63]. In general, because there was so much uncertainty for the use of PCR, the application calls for more standardization.

Compared with BAL galactomannan (GM), PCR from BAL fluid seemed to have superiority in the diagnosis of IPA. Though GM test in plasma, serum or BAL fluid has been incorporated into the EORTC/MSG criteria as one of the clinical diagnostic basis, GM still has its limitations. Affolter et al. reported a moderate diagnostic value of GM in BAL fluid with 50% sensitivity and 73% specificity for proven/probable IPA [66]. For proven IPA only, the specificity decreased, whereas the sensitivity was similar. A meta-analysis conducted by Heng et al. [67] found excellent sensitivity and specificity of GM in BAL fluid for proven/probable IPA. However, when it was estimated for proven IPA only, the specificity decreased to 72%. Similar findings have been reported by Guo et al. [68]. The declining specificity may due to a consequence of false-positive of GM test, increasing the classification of probable IPA using the EORTC/MSG definitions. Besides, the diagnostic accuracy of GM from BAL fluid for patients without HM and HSCT/SOT has not been defined.

There were several limitations in this study. First, the total number of patients without HM and HSCT/SOT included for analysis was relatively small. Second, there was significant heterogeneity in summary estimates. The heterogeneity could be partially explained by study types, group size, the use of antifungal agents, percentage of patients with HM and HSCT/SOT in the study population, DNA extraction, PCR methods and primers. Third, there was significant publication bias in the study. Lastly, misclassification bias could occur when the clinical criteria were used because the EORTC/MSG definition is not the “gold standard” for probable IPA. To identify the accuracy of BAL fluid PCR in IPA diagnosis and its superiority over other methods such as BAL or serum GM test, multicenter RCT study designed with standard criteria is needed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, PCR from BAL fluid is an effective test in IPA diagnosis, indicating the infection of Aspergillus when the result is positive. And the technique seems to be more valuable in the diagnosis of high-risk patients without HM and HSCT/SOT. To improve the accuracy of the test, standardization of DNA extraction and PCR methods is needed for clinical diagnosis.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

AUC:

Area under the curve

BAL:

Bronchoalveolar fluid

DOR:

Diagnostic odds ratio

EORTC:

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer

GM:

Galactomannan

HM:

Hematological malignancy

HSCT/SOT:

Hematopoietic stem cell/solid organ transplantation

IPA:

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis

MSG:

Mycoses study group

NLR:

Negative likelihood ratio

PCR:

Polymerase chain reaction

PLR:

Positive likelihood ratio

rRNA:

Ribosomal RNA

SORC:

Summary receiver operating characteristic

References

  1. Brown GD, Denning DW, Gow NA, Levitz SM, Netea MG, White TC. Hidden killers: human fungal infections. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(165):165rv113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ascioglu S, Rex JH, de Pauw B, Bennett JE, Bille J, Crokaert F, Denning DW, Donnelly JP, Edwards JE, Erjavec Z, et al. Defining opportunistic invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplants: an international consensus. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2002;34(1):7–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, Stevens DA, Edwards JE, Calandra T, Pappas PG, Maertens J, Lortholary O, Kauffman CA, et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2008;46(12):1813–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Caliendo AM. Multiplex PCR and emerging technologies for the detection of respiratory pathogens. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2011;52(Suppl 4):S326-330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Loens K, Ieven M. Mycoplasma pneumoniae: current knowledge on nucleic acid amplification techniques and serological diagnostics. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kourkoumpetis TK, Fuchs BB, Coleman JJ, Desalermos A, Mylonakis E. Polymerase chain reaction-based assays for the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2012;54(9):1322–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cruciani M, Mengoli C, Barnes R, Donnelly JP, Loeffler J, Jones BL, Klingspor L, Maertens J, Morton CO, White LP. Polymerase chain reaction blood tests for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;9:CD009551.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mengoli C, Cruciani M, Barnes RA, Loeffler J, Donnelly JP. Use of PCR for diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009;9(2):89–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Arvanitis M, Anagnostou T, Mylonakis E. Galactomannan and polymerase chain reaction-based screening for invasive aspergillosis among high-risk hematology patients: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(8):1263–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Azoulay E, Russell L, Van de Louw A, Metaxa V, Bauer P, Povoa P, Montero JG, Loeches IM, Mehta S, Puxty K, et al. Diagnosis of severe respiratory infections in immunocompromised patients. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(2):298–314.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hage CA, Carmona EM, Epelbaum O, Evans SE, Gabe LM, Haydour Q, Knox KS, Kolls JK, Murad MH, Wengenack NL, et al. Microbiological laboratory testing in the diagnosis of fungal infections in pulmonary and critical care practice. An official American thoracic society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(5):535–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Donnelly JP, Chen SC, Kauffman CA, Steinbach WJ, Baddley JW, Verweij PE, Clancy CJ, Wingard JR, Lockhart SR, Groll AH, et al. Revision and update of the consensus definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2020;71(6):1367–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Borlenghi E, Cattaneo C, Capucci MA, Pan A, Quaresmini G, Franco F, Grazioli L, Carosi GP, Rossi G. Usefulness of the MSG/IFICG/EORTC diagnostic criteria of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in the clinical management of patients with acute leukaemia developing pulmonary infiltrates. Ann Hematol. 2007;86(3):205–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM. Group Q-: QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(10):982–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JA, Egger M, Deeks JJ, Shang A, Bachmann LM. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(11):1095–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(9):882–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1525–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Subhagan H, Savio J, Padaki P, Srivastava S, Thomas P, Veerappan R, Ramachandran P, Michael R, Ashok J. A simple high-volume culture technique-good substitute for polymerase chain reaction for the detection of Aspergillus species in bronchoalveolar lavage samples. Mycoses. 2022;65(1):24–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mikulska M, Furfaro E, Dettori S, Giacobbe DR, Magnasco L, Dentone C, Ball L, Russo C, Taramasso L, Vena A, et al. Aspergillus-PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage-diagnostic accuracy for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients. Mycoses. 2022;65(4):411–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Scharmann U, Kirchhoff L, Hain A, Buer J, Koldehoff M, Steinmann J, Rath PM. Evaluation of three commercial PCR assays for the detection of azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus from respiratory samples of immunocompromised patients. J Fungi (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;7(2):132.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Unterman A, Izhakian S, Geffen Y, Rosengarten D, Shtraichman O, Pertzov B, Vainshelboim B, Alon H, Raviv Y, Kramer MR. Routine comprehensive Aspergillus screening of bronchoalveolar lavage samples in lung transplant recipients. Clin Transpl. 2020;34(3):e13811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pelzer BW, Seufert R, Koldehoff M, Liebregts T, Schmidt D, Buer J, Rath PM, Steinmann J. Performance of the AsperGenius® PCR assay for detecting azole resistant Aspergillus fumigatus in BAL fluids from allogeneic HSCT recipients: a prospective cohort study from Essen West Germany. Med Mycol. 2020;58(2):268–71.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mikulska M, Furfaro E, De Carolis E, Drago E, Pulzato I, Borghesi ML, Zappulo E, Raiola AM, Di Grazia C, Del Bono V, et al. Use of Aspergillus fumigatus real-time PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage samples (BAL) for diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis, including azole-resistant cases, in high risk haematology patients: the need for a combined use with galactomannan. Med Mycol. 2019;57(8):987–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hardak E, Fuchs E, Leskes H, Geffen Y, Zuckerman T, Oren I. Diagnostic role of polymerase chain reaction in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients–a retrospective cohort study. Int J Infect Dis. 2019;83:20–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wehrle-Wieland E, Affolter K, Goldenberger D, Tschudin Sutter S, Halter J, Passweg J, Tamm M, Khanna N, Stolz D. Diagnosis of invasive mold diseases in patients with hematological malignancies using Aspergillus, Mucorales, and panfungal PCR in BAL. Transpl Infect Dis. 2018;20(5):e12953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Prattes J, Hoenigl M, Zinke SEM, Heldt S, Eigl S, Johnson GL, Bustin S, Stelzl E, Kessler HH. Evaluation of the new AspID polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of Aspergillus species: a pilot study. Mycoses. 2018;61(6):355–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Heldta S, Prattes J, Eigl S, Spiess B, Flick H, Rabensteiner J, Johnson G, Prueller F, Woelfler A, Niedrist T, et al. Diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in hematological malignancy patients: performance of cytokines, Asp LFD, and Aspergillus PCR in same day blood and bronchoalveolar lavage samples. J Infect. 2018;77(3):235–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Guegan H, Robert-Gangneux F, Camus C, Belaz S, Marchand T, Baldeyrou M, Gangneux JP. Improving the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis by the detection of Aspergillus in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid: comparison of non-culture-based assays. J Infect. 2018;76(2):196–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Grancini A, Orlandi A, Lunghi G, Consonni D, Pozzi C, Rossetti V, Palleschi A, Fracchiolla N, Melada E, Savioli M, et al. Evaluation of real time PCR Aspergillus spp. in bronchoalveolar lavage samples. New Microbiol. 2018;41(1):67–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Denis J, Forouzanfar F, Herbrecht R, Toussaint E, Kessler R, Sabou M, Candolfi E, Letsher-Bru V. Evaluation of two commercial real-time PCR kits for Aspergillus DNA detection in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in patients with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. J Mol Diagn. 2018;20(3):298–306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Boch T, Reinwald M, Spiess B, Liebregts T, Schellongowski P, Meybohm P, Rath PM, Steinmann J, Trinkmann F, Britsch S, et al. Detection of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients by combined use of conventional culture, galactomannan, 1-3-beta-D-glucan and Aspergillus specific nested polymerase chain reaction in a prospective pilot study. J Crit Care. 2018;47:198–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Montesinos I, Argudín MA, Hites M, Ahajjam F, Dodémont M, Dagyaran C, Bakkali M, Etienne I, Jacobs F, Knoop C, et al. Culture-based methods and molecular tools for azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus detection in a Belgian University Hospital. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55(8):2391–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Eigl S, Hoenigl M, Spiess B, Heldt S, Prattes J, Neumeister P, Wolfler A, Rabensteiner J, Prueller F, Krause R, et al. Galactomannan testing and Aspergillus PCR in same-day bronchoalveolar lavage and blood samples for diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis. Med Mycol. 2017;55(5):528–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bhimji A, Singer LG, Kumar D, Human A, Rotstein C, Keshavjee S, Mazzulli T, Husain S. Utility of droplet digital PCR for the detection of Aspergillus DNA in bronchoalveolar lavage and exhaled breath condensate samples from lung transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2017;36(4):S122–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhang S, Wang S, Wan Z, Que C, Li R, Yu J. Quantitative real-time PCR and platelia galactomannan assay for the diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid performs better than serum in non-neutropaenic patients. Mycopathologia. 2016;181(9–10):625–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Chong GM, van der Beek MT, von dem Borne PA, Boelens J, Steel E, Kampinga GA, Span LF, Lagrou K, Maertens JA, Dingemans GJ, et al. PCR-based detection of Aspergillus fumigatus Cyp51A mutations on bronchoalveolar lavage: a multicentre validation of the AsperGenius assay® in 201 patients with haematological disease suspected for invasive aspergillosis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(12):3528–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Boch T, Spiess B, Cornely OA, Vehreschild JJ, Rath PM, Steinmann J, Heinz WJ, Hahn J, Krause SW, Kiehl MG, et al. Diagnosis of invasive fungal infections in haematological patients by combined use of galactomannan, 1,3-β-D-glucan, Aspergillus PCR, multifungal DNA-microarray, and Aspergillus azole resistance PCRs in blood and bronchoalveolar lavage samples: results of a prospective multicentre study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22(10):862–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Chong GLM, Van De Sande WWJ, Dingemans GJH, Gaajetaan GR, Vonk AG, Hayette MP, Van Tegelen DWE, Simons GFM, Rijnders BJA. Validation of a new Aspergillus real-time PCR assay for direct detection of Aspergillus and azole resistance of Aspergillus fumigatus on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(3):868–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hoenigl M, Prattes J, Spiess B, Wagner J, Prueller F, Raggam RB, Posch V, Duettmann W, Hoenigl K, Wolfler A, et al. Performance of galactomannan, beta-d-glucan, Aspergillus lateral-flow device, conventional culture, and PCR tests with bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(6):2039–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Heng SC, Chen SCA, Morrissey CO, Thursky K, Manser RL, De Silva HD, Halliday CL, Seymour JF, Nation RL, Kong DCM, et al. Clinical utility of Aspergillus galactomannan and PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for the diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with haematological malignancies. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;79(3):322–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Reinwald M, Spiess B, Heinz WJ, Vehreschild JJ, Lass-Flörl C, Kiehl M, Schultheis B, Krause SW, Wolf HH, Bertz H, et al. Diagnosing pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with hematological malignancies: a multicenter prospective evaluation of an Aspergillus PCR assay and a galactomannan ELISA in bronchoalveolar lavage samples. Eur J Haematol. 2012;89(2):120–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Reinwald M, Hummel M, Kovalevskaya E, Spiess B, Heinz WJ, Vehreschild JJ, Schultheis B, Krause SW, Claus B, Suedhoff T, et al. Therapy with antifungals decreases the diagnostic performance of PCR for diagnosing invasive aspergillosis in bronchoalveolar lavage samples of patients with haematological malignancies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(9):2260–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Buess M, Cathomas G, Halter J, Junker L, Grendelmeier P, Tamm M, Stolz D. Aspergillus-PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage for detection of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. BMC Infect Dis. 2012;12(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Torelli R, Sanguinetti M, Moody A, Pagano L, Caira M, De Carolis E, Fuso L, De Pascale G, Bello G, Antonelli M, et al. Diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis by a commercial real-time PCR assay for Aspergillus DNA in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from high-risk patients compared to a galactomannan enzyme immunoassay. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(12):4273–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Luong ML, Clancy CJ, Vadnerkar A, Kwak EJ, Silveira FP, Wissel MC, Grantham KJ, Shields RK, Crespo M, Pilewski J, et al. Comparison of an Aspergillus real-time polymerase chain reaction assay with galactomannan testing of bronchoalvelolar lavage fluid for the diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in lung transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2011;52(10):1218–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hadrich I, Mary C, Makni F, Elloumi M, Dumon H, Ayadi A, Ranque S. Comparison of PCR-ELISA and Real-Time PCR for invasive aspergillosis diagnosis in patients with hematological malignancies. Med Mycol. 2011;49(5):489–94.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Frealle E, Decrucq K, Botterel F, Bouchindhomme B, Camus D, Dei-Cas E, Costa JM, Yakoub-Agha I, Bretagne S, Delhaes L. Diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis using bronchoalveolar lavage in haematology patients: influence of bronchoalveolar lavage human DNA content on real-time PCR performance. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Off Publ Eur Soc Clin Microbiol. 2009;28(3):223–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Shahid M, Malik A, Bhargava R. Bronchogenic carcinoma and secondary aspergillosis–common yet unexplored: evaluation of the role of bronchoalveolar lavage-polymerase chain reaction and some nonvalidated serologic methods to establish early diagnosis. Cancer. 2008;113(3):547–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Khot PD, Ko DL, Hackman RC, Fredricks DN. Development and optimization of quantitative PCR for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis with bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Musher B, Fredricks D, Leisenring W, Balajee SA, Smith C, Marr KA. Aspergillus galactomannan enzyme immunoassay and quantitative PCR for diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis with bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(12):5517–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Sanguinetti M, Posteraro B, Pagano L, Pagliari G, Fianchi L, Mele L, La Sorda M, Franco A, Fadda G. Comparison of real-time PCR, conventional PCR, and galactomannan antigen detection by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from hematology patients for diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(8):3922–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Rantakokko-Jalava K, Laaksonen S, Issakainen J, Vauras J, Nikoskelainen J, Viljanen MK, Salonen J. Semiquantitative detection by real-time PCR of Aspergillus fumigatus in bronchoalveolar lavage fluids and tissue biopsy specimens from patients with invasive aspergillosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(9):4304–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Raad I, Hanna H, Huaringa A, Sumoza D, Hachem R, Albitar M. Diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis using polymerase chain reaction-based detection of Aspergillus in BAL. Chest. 2002;121(4):1171–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hayette MP, Vaira D, Susin F, Boland P, Christiaens G, Melin P, De Mol P. Detection of Aspergillus species DNA by PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39(6):2338–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Buchheidt D, Baust C, Skladny H, Ritter J, Suedhoff T, Baldus M, Seifarth W, Leib-Moesch C, Hehlmann R. Detection of Aspergillus species in blood and bronchoalveolar lavage samples from immunocompromised patients by means of 2-step polymerase chain reaction: clinical results. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2001;33(4):428–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Jones ME, Fox AJ, Barnes AJ, Oppenheim BA, Balagopal P, Morgenstern GR, Scarffe JH. PCR-ELISA for the early diagnosis of invasive pulmonary Aspergillus infection in neutropenic patients. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51(9):652–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Bretagne S, Costa JM, Marmorat-Khuong A, Poron F, Cordonnier C, Vidaud M, Fleury-Feith J. Detection of Aspergillus species DNA in bronchoalveolar lavage samples by competitive PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 1995;33(5):1164–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Tang CM, Holden DW, Aufauvre-Brown A, Cohen J. The detection of Aspergillus spp. by the polymerase chain reaction and its evaluation in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993;148(5):1313–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Bays DJ, Thompson GR 3rd. Fungal infections of the stem cell transplant recipient and hematologic malignancy patients. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2019;33(2):545–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lass-Florl C, Gunsilius E, Gastl G, Bonatti H, Freund MC, Gschwendtner A, Kropshofer G, Dierich MP, Petzer A. Diagnosing invasive aspergillosis during antifungal therapy by PCR analysis of blood samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(9):4154–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Buchheidt D, Reinwald M, Hofmann W-K, Boch T, Spiess B. Evaluating the use of PCR for diagnosing invasive aspergillosis. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2017;17(6):603–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. McCarthy MW, Walsh TJ. PCR methodology and applications for the detection of human fungal pathogens. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2016;16(9):1025–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. White PL, Mengoli C, Bretagne S, Cuenca-Estrella M, Finnstrom N, Klingspor L, Melchers WJ, McCulloch E, Barnes RA, Donnelly JP, et al. Evaluation of Aspergillus PCR protocols for testing serum specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(11):3842–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Affolter K, Tamm M, Jahn K, Halter J, Passweg J, Hirsch HH, Stolz D. Galactomannan in bronchoalveolar lavage for diagnosing invasive fungal disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(3):309–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Heng SC, Morrissey O, Chen SC, Thursky K, Manser RL, Nation RL, Kong DC, Slavin M. Utility of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid galactomannan alone or in combination with PCR for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in adult hematology patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2015;41(1):124–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Guo Y-L, Chen Y-Q, Wang K, Qin S-M, Wu C, Kong J-L. Accuracy of BAL galactomannan in diagnosing invasive aspergillosis a bivariate metaanalysis and systematic review. Chest. 2010;138(4):817–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like thank all the people who participated in primary studies.

Funding

Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. LY19H01004).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conception and design: YH, FY, WL. Document research: YH, XW, GJ. Analysis and interpretation: YH, AG, ZJ, YY, JL. Manuscript writing and revising: YH, XW, GJ, FY. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wen Li or Fugui Yan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Fig. S1.

Overall quality assessment of included studies (QUADAS-2 tool). Fig. S2. Forest plot of sensitivities and specificities of PCR in BAL fluid for proven/probable IPA in all studies. Fig. S3. Forest plot of sensitivities and specificities of PCR in BAL fluid for proven IPA only. Fig. S4. Deeks’ funnel plot for estimating publication bias.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Han, Y., Wu, X., Jiang, G. et al. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid polymerase chain reaction for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis among high-risk patients: a diagnostic meta-analysis. BMC Pulm Med 23, 58 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02343-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02343-5

Keywords