Search

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multi-modality staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 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 NSCLC. The Streamline L trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed NSCLC that was potentially radically treatable on diagnostic chest CT (defined as stage IIIb or less). Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or histologies other than NSCLC. 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 ISRCTN50436483, and is complete. Between Feb 26, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016, 976 patients were screened for eligibility. 353 patients were recruited, 187 of whom completed the trial; 52 (28%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 50% (95% CI 37–63) for WB-MRI and 54% (41–67) for standard pathways, a difference of 4% (−7 to 15, p=0·73). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (93% [88–96]) and standard pathways (95% [91–98], p=0·45). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 98% for WB-MRI and 99% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (13 days [12–14]) than for the standard pathway (19 days [17–21]); a 6-day (4–8) difference. The number of tests required was similar WB-MRI (one [1–1]) and standard pathways (one [1–2]). Mean per-patient costs were £317 (273–361) for WBI-MRI and £620 (574–666) for standard pathways. WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs. UK National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are the first line standard of care for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Accurate response assessment in the setting of antiangiogenic therapies remains suboptimal as standard size-related response criteria do not necessarily accurately reflect clinical benefit, as they may be less pronounced or occur later in therapy than devascularisation. The challenge for imaging is providing timely assessment of disease status allowing therapies to be tailored to ensure ongoing clinical benefit. We propose that combined assessment of morphological, physiological and metabolic imaging parameters using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (18F-FDG PET/MRI) will better reflect disease behaviour, improving assessment of response/non-response/relapse.Methods/design: The REMAP study is a single-centre prospective observational study. Eligible patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, planned for systemic therapy, with at least 2 lesions will undergo an integrated 18F-FDG PET and MRI whole body imaging with diffusion weighted and contrast-enhanced multiphasic as well as standard anatomical MRI sequences at baseline, 12 weeks and 24 weeks of systemic therapy allowing 18F-FDG standardised uptake value (SUV), apparent diffusion co-efficient (ADC) and normalised signal intensity (SI) parameters to be obtained. Standard of care contrast-enhanced computed tomography CT scans will be performed at equivalent time-points. CT response categorisation will be performed using RECIST 1.1 and alternative (modified)Choi and MASS criteria. The reference standard for disease status will be by consensus panel taking into account clinical, biochemical and conventional imaging parameters. Intra- and inter-tumoural heterogeneity in vascular, diffusion and metabolic response/non-response will be assessed by image texture analysis. Imaging will also inform the development of computational methods for automated disease status categorisation.Discussion: The REMAP study will demonstrate the ability of integrated 18F-FDG PET-MRI to provide a more personalised approach to therapy. We suggest that 18F-FDG PET/MRI will provide superior sensitivity and specificity in early response/non-response categorisation when compared to standard CT (using RECIST 1.1 and alternative (modified)Choi or MASS criteria) thus facilitating more timely and better informed treatment decisions.Trial Registration: The trial is approved by the Southeast London Research Ethics Committee reference 16/LO/1499 and registered on the NIHR clinical research network portfolio ISRCTN12114913 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Given the limited diagnostic accuracy of radiographs on presentation to the emergency department (ED), the management of suspected scaphoid fractures remains clinically challenging and poses an unknown economic burden to healthcare systems. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of immediate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the management of patients presenting with suspected scaphoid fracture to an ED in England., Methods: A pragmatic, randomized, single-center trial compared the use of immediate MRI in the ED against standard care with radiographs only. Participants' use of healthcare services and costs were estimated from primary care and secondary care databases and questionnaires at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months postrecruitment. Costs were compared using generalized linear models and combined with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, based on the EQ-5D-5L) to estimate cost-effectiveness at 6 months postrecruitment. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and bootstrapping techniques were used to estimate the probability of cost-effectiveness at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Four deterministic sensitivity scenarios were considered around key parameters., Results: The MRI intervention dominated standard care in the base case and all 4 deterministic sensitivity scenarios, costing less and achieving more QALY gains, with a probability of 100% of being cost-effective at 6 months using the conventional United Kingdom WTP thresholds of £20 000 to £30 000 per QALY., Conclusion: The use of immediate MRI is a cost-effective intervention in the management of suspected scaphoid fractures in a Central Hospital in London. Routine clinical practice at our institution has been changed to include the intervention., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging is advocated as an alternative to standard pathways for staging cancer., Objectives: The objectives were to compare diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, patient acceptability, observer variability and cost-effectiveness of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways in staging newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L) and colorectal cancer (Streamline C)., Design: The design was a prospective multicentre cohort study., Setting: The setting was 16 NHS hospitals., Participants: Consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically proven or suspected colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L)., Interventions: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. Standard staging investigations (e.g. computed tomography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography)., Reference Standard: Consensus panel decision using 12-month follow-up data., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was per-patient sensitivity difference between whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard staging pathways for metastasis. Secondary outcomes included differences in specificity, the nature of the first major treatment decision, time and number of tests to complete staging, patient experience and cost-effectiveness., Results: Streamline C - 299 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 67% (95% confidence interval 56% to 78%) and 63% (95% confidence interval 51% to 74%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -5% to 13%; p  = 0.51). Specificity was 95% (95% confidence interval 92% to 97%) and 93% (95% confidence interval 90% to 96%) respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 6%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 96% and 95% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 8 days (95% confidence interval 6 to 9 days) and 13 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 5 days (95% confidence interval 3 to 7 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £216 (95% confidence interval £211 to £221) versus £285 (95% confidence interval £260 to £310). Streamline L - 187 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 50% (95% confidence interval 37% to 63%) and 54% (95% confidence interval 41% to 67%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -7% to 15%; p  = 0.73). Specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval 88% to 96%) and 95% (95% confidence interval 91% to 98%), respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 7%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 98% and 99% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 13 days (95% confidence interval 12 to 14 days) and 19 days (95% confidence interval 17 to 21 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 6 days (95% confidence interval 4 to 8 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £317 (95% confidence interval £273 to £361) versus £620 (95% confidence interval £574 to £666). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most participants preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway if it reduced time to staging and/or number of tests., Limitations: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by practitioners blinded to other clinical data, which may not fully reflect how it is used in clinical practice., Conclusions: In colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer, the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway has similar accuracy to standard staging pathways, is generally preferred by patients, improves staging efficiency and has lower staging costs. Future work should address the utility of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response assessment., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Stuart A Taylor reports personal fees from Robarts Clinical Trials Inc. (London, ON, Canada) outside the submitted work. Andrea Rockall reports personal fees from Guerbet (Paris, France) outside the submitted work. Vicky Goh and Anwar Padhani report grants from Siemens AG (Erlangen, Germany) outside the submitted work. Steve Halligan reports non-financial support from iCad Inc. (Nashua, NH, USA) outside the submitted work and was a member of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) commissioning board (2008–14). Stephen Morris declares past membership of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA Clinical Evaluation and Trials Board (2007–9), HTA Commissioning Board (2009–13), Public Health Research Board (2011–17), Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) Commissioning Board (2014–16) and HSDR Board (2014–18), and current membership of the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research expert subpanel (2015–present) and HSDR Evidence Synthesis Sub Board (2016–present).