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.
Keywords: COLONIC NEOPLASMS; COST–BENEFIT ANALYSIS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; WHOLE-BODY IMAGING.
Colorectal and lung cancer are the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in the UK. Optimal treatment depends on accurately defining (or ‘staging’) the extent of disease, particularly if it has spread to other parts of the body such as the liver. Current staging pathways are complex and rely on a variety of tests that use X-rays, such as computed tomography and positron emission tomography–computed tomography scans. Patients often undergo multiple tests before starting treatment. Alternatively, it is possible to scan the whole body using magnetic resonance imaging without X-rays, and this may be more accurate and reduce the time and number of tests needed before treatment can start. We compared the ability to detect cancer spread, efficiency, patient experience and cost-effectiveness of staging based on whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with the standard NHS pathways in participants newly diagnosed with either lung (187 participants) or colorectal (299 participants) cancer. We found that the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was as accurate as standard staging pathways and resulted in very similar treatment decisions made by the clinical teams. The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway detected 67% and 50% of participants with cancer spread in colorectal and lung cancer, respectively, compared with 63% and 54%, respectively, for standard staging. However, staging was quicker using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (by 5 days for colorectal cancer and 6 days for lung cancer) and needed on average one less test to stage colorectal cancer. The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was also cheaper (costing on average £216 and £317 for colorectal and lung cancer, respectively, compared with £285 and £620, respectively, for standard pathways). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway if it reduced the time to staging and/or the number of tests. Agreement between different radiology doctors interpreting the same whole-body magnetic resonance imaging scan was moderate for colon cancer and low for lung cancer, emphasising the need for training.