Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the performance of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for diagnosing mucormycosis. Methods: A standardised search was conducted from conception to December 3rd 2024 using PubMed, Embase, Global Health, and Cochrane library. Original studies that used PCR-based methods on any human specimen to diagnose mucormycosis were analysed for eligibility. Using a bivariate meta-analysis, the diagnostic performance of PCR was examined against the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium 2020 (EORTC-MSGERC) definitions of proven and probable invasive mould disease, which was modified to include all patients at risk of mucormycosis. The study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42023478667). Findings: Of 4855 articles, a total of 30 met inclusion criteria, including 5920 PCR reactions on 5147 non-duplicate specimens from 819 cases of proven/probable mucormycosis and 4266 patients who did not meet the EORTC-MSGERC 2020 criteria. According to specimen type, sensitivity of PCR varied (p < 0.001) whereas specificity was similar (p = 0.662). Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid offered the highest sensitivity of 97.5% (95% CI 83.7–99.7%), specificity of 95.8% (95% CI 89.6–98.4%), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 23.5, and negative likelihood ratio (LR−) of 0.03. Tissue provided sensitivity of 86.4% (95% CI 78.9–91.5%), specificity of 90.6% (95% CI 78.1–96.3%), LR+ of 9.2, and LR− of 0.15. Blood provided reduced sensitivity of 81.6% (95% CI 70.1–89.4%), specificity of 95.5% (95% CI 87.4–98.5%), DOR of 95, LR+ of 18.3, and LR− of 0.19. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens yielded the lowest sensitivity of 73.0% (95% CI 61.0–82.3%), highest specificity of 96.4% (CI 95% 87.5–99.0%), LR+ of 20.2, and LR− of 0.28. The covariates best explaining heterogeneity of the overall analysis were specimen type, study design (cohort versus case-control) and disease prevalence while patient population (COVID-19 versus other) and PCR (conventional versus quantitative) had less impact on heterogeneity. Interpretation: This meta-analysis confirms the high performance of PCR for diagnosing mucormycosis and supports the instatement of PCR detection of free-DNA in blood, BALF and tissue into future updated definitions and diagnostic guidelines for mucormycosis. Funding: None.

The diagnosis of mucormycosis by PCR in patients at risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis / L. Brown, L. Tschiderer, A. Alanio, R.A. Barnes, S.C. Chen, M. Cogliati, M. Cruciani, J.P. Donnelly, F. Hagen, C. Halliday, L. Klingspor, K. Lagrou, W. Melchers, L. Millon, F. Morio, E. Salvador, G. Stroffolini, M. Ruhnke, S. Toepfer, K. van Dijk, A.M. Borman, M.J. Buitrago, R. Gorton, J. Löffller, R. Rautemaa-Richardson, B. Sendid, P. Willeit, P.L. White, M. Lackner. - In: ECLINICALMEDICINE. - ISSN 2589-5370. - 81:(2025 Mar), pp. 103115.1-103115.12. [10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103115]

The diagnosis of mucormycosis by PCR in patients at risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

M. Cogliati;
2025

Abstract

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the performance of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for diagnosing mucormycosis. Methods: A standardised search was conducted from conception to December 3rd 2024 using PubMed, Embase, Global Health, and Cochrane library. Original studies that used PCR-based methods on any human specimen to diagnose mucormycosis were analysed for eligibility. Using a bivariate meta-analysis, the diagnostic performance of PCR was examined against the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium 2020 (EORTC-MSGERC) definitions of proven and probable invasive mould disease, which was modified to include all patients at risk of mucormycosis. The study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42023478667). Findings: Of 4855 articles, a total of 30 met inclusion criteria, including 5920 PCR reactions on 5147 non-duplicate specimens from 819 cases of proven/probable mucormycosis and 4266 patients who did not meet the EORTC-MSGERC 2020 criteria. According to specimen type, sensitivity of PCR varied (p < 0.001) whereas specificity was similar (p = 0.662). Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid offered the highest sensitivity of 97.5% (95% CI 83.7–99.7%), specificity of 95.8% (95% CI 89.6–98.4%), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 23.5, and negative likelihood ratio (LR−) of 0.03. Tissue provided sensitivity of 86.4% (95% CI 78.9–91.5%), specificity of 90.6% (95% CI 78.1–96.3%), LR+ of 9.2, and LR− of 0.15. Blood provided reduced sensitivity of 81.6% (95% CI 70.1–89.4%), specificity of 95.5% (95% CI 87.4–98.5%), DOR of 95, LR+ of 18.3, and LR− of 0.19. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens yielded the lowest sensitivity of 73.0% (95% CI 61.0–82.3%), highest specificity of 96.4% (CI 95% 87.5–99.0%), LR+ of 20.2, and LR− of 0.28. The covariates best explaining heterogeneity of the overall analysis were specimen type, study design (cohort versus case-control) and disease prevalence while patient population (COVID-19 versus other) and PCR (conventional versus quantitative) had less impact on heterogeneity. Interpretation: This meta-analysis confirms the high performance of PCR for diagnosing mucormycosis and supports the instatement of PCR detection of free-DNA in blood, BALF and tissue into future updated definitions and diagnostic guidelines for mucormycosis. Funding: None.
Diagnosis; Fungal; Mucorales; Mucormycosis; PCR
Settore MEDS-24/B - Igiene generale e applicata
mar-2025
22-feb-2025
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2025 eClinMed.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 546.7 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
546.7 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1150316
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
  • OpenAlex ND
social impact