Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: the prospective Streamline C trial

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Authors

  • Streamline investigators
  • Stuart A Taylor
  • Sue Mallett
  • Sandy Beare
  • Gauraang Bhatnagar
  • Peter Boavida
  • John A Bridgewater
  • Caroline Clarke
  • Marian Duggan
  • Steve Ellis
  • Robert Glynne-Jones
  • Vicky Goh
  • Ashley M Groves
  • Ayshea Hameeduddin
  • Sam M Janes
  • Edward Johnston
  • Dow Mu Koh
  • Anne Miles
  • Stephen Morris
  • Alison Morton
  • Neal Navani
  • John O’Donohue
  • Alfred Oliver
  • Anwar R Padhani
  • Helen Pardoe
  • Uday Patel
  • Shonit Punwani
  • Laura Quinn
  • Hameed Rafiee
  • Krystyna Reczko
  • Andrea G Rockall
  • Khawaja Shahabuddin
  • Harbir S Sidhu
  • Jonathan Teague
  • Mohamed Thaha
  • Matthew Train
  • Katherine Van Ree
  • Sanjaya Wijeyekoon
  • Steve Halligan

Colleges, School and Institutes

Abstract

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.

Bibliographic note

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.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)529-537
Number of pages9
JournalThe Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume4
Issue number7
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2019

ASJC Scopus subject areas