ObjectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of liver cancer screening techniques to inform screening intervention and early diagnosis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM, VIP databases to collect relevant diagnostic accuracy studies of screening technologies for liver cancer from January 1980 to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed by using Meta-Disc 1.4 software.ResultsA total of 54 publications with 47 728 individuals were included. In terms of pooled sensitivity from the meta-analysis, it was estimated as 0.71 (95%CI 0.70 to 0.72), 0.57 (95%CI 0.56 to 0.59) and 0.43 (95%CI 0.41 to 0.45); the pooled specificity was estimated as 0.92 (95%CI 0.92 to 0.93), 0.95 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.96) and 0.95 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.96); the pooled positive likelihood ratio was 5.65 (95%CI 4.37 to 7.30), 13.24(95%CI 4.25 to 41.22) and 11.39 (95%CI 4.01 to 32.35); the pooled negative likelihood ratio was 0.35 (95%CI 0.31 to 0.39), 0.38 (95%CI 0.29 to 0.52) and 0.49 (95%CI 0.39 to 0.62); the diagnosis odds ratio was 17.23 (95%CI 12.26 to 24.20), 33.79 (95%CI 12.65 to 90.24) and 24.41(95%CI 9.23 to 64.53) for AFP alone with cut-off of 20, 200 and 400 ng/mL, respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnosis odds ratio were 0.65 (95%CI 0.62 to 0.69), 0.97 (95%CI 0.97 to 0.97), 16.48 (95%CI 9.55 to 28.42), 0.27 (95%CI 0.18 to 0.42) and 64.54 (95%CI 30.16 to 138.11) for ultrasound examination alone. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnosis odds ratio were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.98), 0.96 (95%CI 0.96 to 0.96), 10.76 (95%CI 2.62 to 44.27), 0.07 (95%CI 0.02 to 0.22) and 160.59 (95%CI 31.61 to 816.03) for the combined strategy.ConclusionFor liver cancer screening technologies, the overall accuracy of serum AFP test alone is the optimum at cut-off of 20 ng/mL, and the sensitivity increased substantially when combined with ultrasound examination.
