Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer: the prospective Streamline L trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Lung cancer diagnosis and staging with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration compared with conventional approaches: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and staging of lung cancer is an important process that identifies treatment options and guides disease prognosis. We aimed to assess endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration as an initial investigation technique for patients with suspected lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients who had undergone a CT scan and had suspected stage I to IIIA lung cancer, from six UK centres and randomly assigned them to either endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) or conventional diagnosis and staging (CDS), for further investigation and staging. If a target node could not be accessed by EBUS-TBNA, then endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was allowed as an alternative procedure. Randomisation was stratified according to the presence of mediastinal lymph nodes measuring 1 cm or more in the short axis and by recruiting centre. We used a telephone randomisation method with permuted blocks of four generated by a computer. Because of the nature of the intervention, masking of participants and consenting investigators was not possible. The primary endpoint was the time-to-treatment decision after completion of the diagnostic and staging investigations and analysis was by intention-to-diagnose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00652769. FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2008, and July 4, 2011, we randomly allocated 133 patients to treatment: 66 to EBUS-TBNA and 67 to CDS (one later withdrew consent). Two patients from the EBUS-TBNA group underwent EUS-FNA. The median time to treatment decision was shorter with EBUS-TBNA (14 days; 95% CI 14-15) than with CDS (29 days; 23-35) resulting in a hazard ratio of 1·98, (1·39-2·82, p<0·0001). One patient in each group had a pneumothorax from a CT-guided biopsy sample; the patient from the CDS group needed intercostal drainage and was admitted to hospital. INTERPRETATION: Transbronchial needle aspiration guided by endobronchial ultrasound should be considered as the initial investigation for patients with suspected lung cancer, because it reduces the time to treatment decision compared with conventional diagnosis and staging techniques. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.