Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: the prospective Streamline C trial.
Journal
The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology
ISSN: 2468-1253
Titre abrégé: Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101690683
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2019
07 2019
Historique:
received:
03
01
2019
revised:
11
02
2019
accepted:
11
02
2019
pubmed:
14
5
2019
medline:
23
5
2020
entrez:
14
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multimodality staging of colorectal cancer, but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in colorectal cancer. The Streamline C trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or polyp cancer. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs), and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN43958015, and is complete. Between March 26, 2013, and Aug 19, 2016, 1020 patients were screened for eligibility. 370 patients were recruited, 299 of whom completed the trial; 68 (23%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 67% (95% CI 56 to 78) for WB-MRI and 63% (51 to 74) for standard pathways, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (-5 to 13, p=0·51). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (95% [95% CI 92-97]) and standard pathways (93% [90-96], p=0·48). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 96% for WB-MRI and 95% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (median, 8 days [IQR 6-9]) than for the standard pathway (13 days [11-15]); a 5-day (3-7) difference. WB-MRI required fewer tests (median, one [95% CI 1 to 1]) than did standard pathways (two [2 to 2]), a difference of one (1 to 1). Mean per-patient staging costs were £216 (95% CI 211-221) for WB-MRI and £285 (260-310) for standard pathways. WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways and reduce the number of tests needed, staging time, and cost. UK National Institute for Health Research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multimodality staging of colorectal cancer, but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in colorectal cancer.
METHODS
The Streamline C trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or polyp cancer. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs), and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN43958015, and is complete.
FINDINGS
Between March 26, 2013, and Aug 19, 2016, 1020 patients were screened for eligibility. 370 patients were recruited, 299 of whom completed the trial; 68 (23%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 67% (95% CI 56 to 78) for WB-MRI and 63% (51 to 74) for standard pathways, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (-5 to 13, p=0·51). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (95% [95% CI 92-97]) and standard pathways (93% [90-96], p=0·48). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 96% for WB-MRI and 95% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (median, 8 days [IQR 6-9]) than for the standard pathway (13 days [11-15]); a 5-day (3-7) difference. WB-MRI required fewer tests (median, one [95% CI 1 to 1]) than did standard pathways (two [2 to 2]), a difference of one (1 to 1). Mean per-patient staging costs were £216 (95% CI 211-221) for WB-MRI and £285 (260-310) for standard pathways.
INTERPRETATION
WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways and reduce the number of tests needed, staging time, and cost.
FUNDING
UK National Institute for Health Research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31080095
pii: S2468-1253(19)30056-1
doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30056-1
pmc: PMC6547166
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
529-537Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 10/68/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : EME/13/122/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : ICA-CDRF-2017-03-053
Pays : United Kingdom
Investigateurs
Ruth Evans
(R)
Simon Ball
(S)
Revanth Jannapureddy
(R)
Tina Mills-Baldock
(T)
Kishor Barhate
(K)
Zoltan Nagy
(Z)
Sherif Raouf
(S)
Akosa Aboagye
(A)
Girija Anand
(G)
Rommel Butawan
(R)
Elizabeth Hadley
(E)
Adesewa Onajobi
(A)
Kathryn Tarver
(K)
Tanjil Nawaz
(T)
Catherine Norman
(C)
Nathalie Rich
(N)
Sidra Tulmuntaha
(S)
Shafi Ahmed
(S)
Louise Lim
(L)
Fiona McKirdy
(F)
Jenna Couture
(J)
Shahanara Ferdous
(S)
Payal Julka
(P)
Ali Mohammed
(A)
Terry O'Shaughnessy
(T)
William Ricketts
(W)
Marie Jackson
(M)
Clive Kay
(C)
Andy Lowe
(A)
Janet McGowan
(J)
Amjad Mohammed
(A)
Jon Robinson
(J)
Lara Curry
(L)
Sasithar Maheswaran
(S)
Subramanian Ramesh
(S)
Pippa Riddle
(P)
Shaki Balogun
(S)
Yvonne Campbell
(Y)
Nelesh Jeyadevan
(N)
Aji Kavidasan
(A)
Imogen Locke
(I)
Tuck-Kay Loke
(TK)
Ibiyemi Olaleye
(I)
Clare Collins
(C)
Elizabeth Green
(E)
Colm Prendergast
(C)
Thida Win
(T)
Amy Davis
(A)
Lyn Blakeway
(L)
Sofia Gourtsoyianni
(S)
Adrian Green
(A)
Christian Kelly-Morland
(C)
Sahar Naaseri
(S)
Davide Prezzi
(D)
David Snell
(D)
Dorothee Boisfer
(D)
Keyury Desai
(K)
Balinder Hans
(B)
Sophia Hans
(S)
Eleni Ntala
(E)
Adnam Alam
(A)
Stephen Burke
(S)
Angshu Bhowmik
(A)
Nishat Bharwani
(N)
Gule Hanid
(G)
Lesley Honeyfield
(L)
Tina Stoycheva
(T)
Nicola Strickland
(N)
Farid Bazari
(F)
Helen Beedham
(H)
Jane De Los
(J)
Reyes Lauigan
(R)
Priya Limbu
(P)
Nicola Lucas
(N)
Sally O'Connor
(S)
Anita Rhodes
(A)
Laletha Agoramoorthy
(L)
Martha Handousa
(M)
Abel Jalloh
(A)
Stefania Stegner
(S)
Shanna Wilson
(S)
David Birch
(D)
Suzanne Chukundah
(S)
Priscilla Phiri
(P)
Raj Srirajaskanthan
(R)
Eleni Karapanagiotou
(E)
Daniel Smith
(D)
Ferrial Syeed
(F)
Chloe van Someren
(C)
Rudi Borgstein
(R)
Jamila Roehrig
(J)
David Chao
(D)
Lorraine Hurl
(L)
Andrew Gogbashian
(A)
Andre Nunes
(A)
Ian Simcock
(I)
James Stirling
(J)
Richard Beable
(R)
Maureen Furneaux
(M)
Nicola Gibbons
(N)
Antony Higginson
(A)
Howard Curtis
(H)
Kitrick Perry
(K)
Anita Amadi
(A)
Heather Hughes
(H)
Prital Patel
(P)
Gary Atkin
(G)
Colin Elton
(C)
Stephen Karp
(S)
Lisa Woodrow
(L)
Dominic Yu
(D)
Sajid Khan
(S)
Alistair Rienhardt
(A)
Pooja Datt
(P)
Rajapandian Ilangovan
(R)
Ian Jenkins
(I)
Saba Mahmud
(S)
Teresa Light
(T)
Joanne Kellaway
(J)
Ann O'Callaghan
(A)
William Partridge
(W)
Amelia Daniel
(A)
Ugo Ekeowa
(U)
Michael Long
(M)
Peter Russell
(P)
Erica Scurr
(E)
Veronica Morgan
(V)
Nina Tunariu
(N)
Elizabeth Chang
(E)
Laura Hughes
(L)
Ellice Marwood
(E)
Katie Prior
(K)
Meena Reddi
(M)
Kara Sargus
(K)
Abby Sharp
(A)
Teresita Beeston
(T)
Elizabeth Isaac
(E)
Adoracion Jayme
(A)
Jagadish Kalasthry
(J)
Wivijin Piga
(W)
Farzana Rahman
(F)
Shraddha Weir
(S)
Aileen Austria
(A)
James Crosbie
(J)
Alec Engledow
(A)
Jonathan McCullogh
(J)
Austen Obichere
(A)
Kai-Keen Shiu
(KK)
Christopher Wanstall
(C)
Celia Simeon
(C)
Amy Smith
(A)
Andrew Bateman
(A)
David Breen
(D)
Liane Davis
(L)
Chris Everitt
(C)
Alice Johnson
(A)
Paul Nichols
(P)
Beth Shepherd
(B)
Kayleigh Gilbert
(K)
Azmina Verjee
(A)
Michelle Saull
(M)
Jonathan Wilson
(J)
Rashidat Adeniba
(R)
Veronica Conteh
(V)
Sarah Howling
(S)
Sara Lock
(S)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2018 Apr;27(2):349-365
pubmed: 29496094
BMJ. 2012 Feb 21;344:e686
pubmed: 22354600
Clin Nucl Med. 2013 May;38(5):343-8
pubmed: 23531774
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 20;25(33):5218-24
pubmed: 18024867
Br J Radiol. 2016 Aug;89(1064):20160257
pubmed: 27226219
Pediatr Radiol. 2018 Feb;48(2):241-252
pubmed: 29151119
Surg Oncol. 2013 Dec;22(4):261-6
pubmed: 24210143
Radiology. 2010 Dec;257(3):674-84
pubmed: 20829538
Eur Radiol. 2011 Dec;21(12):2604-17
pubmed: 21887484
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Dec;11(50):iii, ix-51
pubmed: 18021577
Radiology. 2016 Oct;281(1):86-98
pubmed: 27110732
J Surg Res. 2012 Nov;178(1):304-14
pubmed: 22541065
Eur Radiol. 2019 Jul;29(7):3889-3900
pubmed: 30937589
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jun;91(1086):20170731
pubmed: 29528257
Ann Oncol. 2013 Jan;24(1):96-101
pubmed: 22975361
Br J Radiol. 2012 Dec;85(1020):e1166-73
pubmed: 23175483
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Jan;110:14-21
pubmed: 30599851
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Jul;34(1):128-35
pubmed: 21618333
Eur J Radiol. 2012 May;81(5):1007-15
pubmed: 21354739
BMC Cancer. 2017 May 2;17(1):299
pubmed: 28464835
Stat Med. 1998 Nov 30;17(22):2635-50
pubmed: 9839354
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Feb;206(2):283-90
pubmed: 26587799
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 10;12(2):e0171704
pubmed: 28187173
Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Jun;7(6):523-532
pubmed: 31080129
Radiology. 2008 Aug;248(2):643-54
pubmed: 18539889
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Feb;83(2):338-44
pubmed: 24355655
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 6;7(9):e016391
pubmed: 28882915
Abdom Imaging. 2008 Nov-Dec;33(6):676-88
pubmed: 18373114
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2011 Jun;23(5):350-8
pubmed: 21094027
Psychooncology. 2012 Jan;21(1):1-10
pubmed: 22905349
Stat Med. 2002 Mar 30;21(6):835-52
pubmed: 11870820