Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT compared with positron emission tomography CT to characterise solitary pulmonary nodules: the SPUtNIk diagnostic accuracy study and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: Current pathways recommend positron emission tomography-computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography may be a more cost-effective approach. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performances of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography in the NHS for solitary pulmonary nodules. Systematic reviews and a health economic evaluation contributed to the decision-analytic modelling to assess the likely costs and health outcomes resulting from incorporation of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography into management strategies. DESIGN: Multicentre comparative accuracy trial. SETTING: Secondary or tertiary outpatient settings at 16 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with solitary pulmonary nodules of ≥ 8 mm and of ≤ 30 mm in size with no malignancy in the previous 2 years were included. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography with 2 years' follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared management strategies that used dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography with management strategies that did not use dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients were recruited (median age 69 years). Of 312 patients with matched dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examinations, 191 (61%) were cancer patients. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography were 72.8% (95% confidence interval 66.1% to 78.6%), 81.8% (95% confidence interval 74.0% to 87.7%), 76.3% (95% confidence interval 71.3% to 80.7%) and 95.3% (95% confidence interval 91.3% to 97.5%), 29.8% (95% confidence interval 22.3% to 38.4%) and 69.9% (95% confidence interval 64.6% to 74.7%), respectively. Exploratory modelling showed that maximum standardised uptake values had the best diagnostic accuracy, with an area under the curve of 0.87, which increased to 0.90 if combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography peak enhancement. The economic analysis showed that, over 24 months, dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography was less costly (£3305, 95% confidence interval £2952 to £3746) than positron emission tomography-computerised tomography (£4013, 95% confidence interval £3673 to £4498) or a strategy combining the two tests (£4058, 95% confidence interval £3702 to £4547). Positron emission tomography-computerised tomography led to more patients with malignant nodules being correctly managed, 0.44 on average (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.49), compared with 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.45); using both tests further increased this (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.51). LIMITATIONS: The high prevalence of malignancy in nodules observed in this trial, compared with that observed in nodules identified within screening programmes, limits the generalisation of the current results to nodules identified by screening. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this research indicate that positron emission tomography-computerised tomography is more accurate than dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. A combination of maximum standardised uptake value and peak enhancement had the highest accuracy with a small increase in costs. Findings from this research also indicate that a combined positron emission tomography-dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography approach with a slightly higher willingness to pay to avoid missing small cancers or to avoid a 'watch and wait' policy may be an approach to consider. FUTURE WORK: Integration of the dynamic contrast-enhanced component into the positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examination and the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography at lung screening for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules should be explored, together with a lower radiation dose protocol. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018112215 and CRD42019124299, and the trial is registered as ISRCTN30784948 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02013063. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A nodule found on a lung scan can cause concern as it may be a sign of cancer. Finding lung cancer nodules when they are small (i.e. < 3 cm) is very important. Most nodules are not cancerous. Computerised tomography (cross-sectional images created from multiple X-rays) and positron emission tomography­computerised tomography (a technique that uses a radioactive tracer combined with computerised tomography) are used to see whether or not a nodule is cancerous; although they perform well, improvements are required. This study compared dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography with positron emission tomography­computerised tomography scans to find out which test is best. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography involves injection of a special dye into the bloodstream, followed by repeated scans of the nodule over several minutes. We assessed the costs to the NHS of undertaking the different scans, relative to their benefits, to judge which option was the best value for money. We recruited 380 patients from 16 hospitals across England and Scotland, of whom 312 had both dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography and positron emission tomography­computerised tomography scans. We found that current positron emission tomography­computerised tomography is more accurate, providing a correct diagnosis in 76% of cases, than the new dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography, which provides a correct diagnosis in 70% of cases. Although dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography cannot replace positron emission tomography­computerised tomography, it may represent good-value use of NHS resources, especially if it is performed before positron emission tomography­computerised tomography and they are used in combination. Although more research is required, it may be possible in the future to perform dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography at the same time as positron emission tomography­computerised tomography in patients with suspected lung cancer or if a lung nodule is found on a lung screening programme at the time of the computerised tomography examination. This may reduce the need for some people to have positron emission tomography­computerised tomography.

Comparative accuracy and cost-effectiveness of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and positron emission tomography in the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules.

INTRODUCTION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) and positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) have a high reported accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of these. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre trial, 380 participants with an SPN (8-30 mm) and no recent history of malignancy underwent DCE-CT and PET/CT. All patients underwent either biopsy with histological diagnosis or completed CT follow-up. Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy for PET/CT and DCE-CT. Costs and cost-effectiveness were estimated from a healthcare provider perspective using a decision-model. RESULTS: 312 participants (47% female, 68.1±9.0 years) completed the study, with 61% rate of malignancy at 2 years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values for DCE-CT were 95.3% (95% CI 91.3 to 97.5), 29.8% (95% CI 22.3 to 38.4), 68.2% (95% CI 62.4% to 73.5%) and 80.0% (95% CI 66.2 to 89.1), respectively, and for PET/CT were 79.1% (95% CI 72.7 to 84.2), 81.8% (95% CI 74.0 to 87.7), 87.3% (95% CI 81.5 to 91.5) and 71.2% (95% CI 63.2 to 78.1). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for DCE-CT and PET/CT was 0.62 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.85), respectively (p<0.001). Combined results significantly increased diagnostic accuracy over PET/CT alone (AUROC=0.90 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.93), p<0.001). DCE-CT was preferred when the willingness to pay per incremental cost per correctly treated malignancy was below £9000. Above £15 500 a combined approach was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT has a superior diagnostic accuracy to DCE-CT for the diagnosis of SPNs. Combining both techniques improves the diagnostic accuracy over either test alone and could be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02013063.

Gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for chemoradiation patients with head and neck cancer: the TUBE pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 9000 new cases of head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCCs) are treated by the NHS each year. Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is a commonly used treatment for advanced HNSCC. Approximately 90% of patients undergoing CRT require nutritional support via gastrostomy or nasogastric tube feeding. Long-term dysphagia following CRT is a primary concern for patients. The effect of enteral feeding routes on swallowing function is not well understood, and the two feeding methods have, to date (at the time of writing), not been compared. The aim of this pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to compare these two options. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods multicentre study to establish the feasibility of a RCT comparing oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy with oral feeding plus as-required nasogastric tube feeding in patients with HNSCC. Patients were recruited from four tertiary centres treating cancer and randomised to the two arms of the study (using a 1 : 1 ratio). The eligibility criteria were patients with advanced-staged HNSCC who were suitable for primary CRT with curative intent and who presented with no swallowing problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the willingness to be randomised. A qualitative process evaluation was conducted alongside an economic modelling exercise. The criteria for progression to a Phase III trial were based on a hypothesised recruitment rate of at least 50%, collection of outcome measures in at least 80% of those recruited and an economic value-of-information analysis for cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Of the 75 patients approached about the trial, only 17 consented to be randomised [0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.32]. Among those who were randomised, the compliance rate was high (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05). Retention rates were high at completion of treatment (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05), at the 3-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04) and at the 6-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04). No serious adverse events were recorded in relation to the trial. The qualitative substudy identified several factors that had an impact on recruitment, many of which are amenable to change. These included organisational factors, changing cancer treatments and patient and clinician preferences. A key reason for the differential recruitment between sites was the degree to which the multidisciplinary team gave a consistent demonstration of equipoise at all patient interactions at which supplementary feeding was discussed. An exploratory economic model generated from published evidence and expert opinion suggests that, over the 6-month model time horizon, pre-treatment gastrostomy tube feeding is not a cost-effective option, although this should be interpreted with caution and we recommend that this should not form the basis for policy. The economic value-of-information analysis indicates that additional research to eliminate uncertainty around model parameters is highly likely to be cost-effective. STUDY LIMITATIONS: The recruitment issues identified for this cohort may not be applicable to other populations undergoing CRT. There remains substantial uncertainty in the economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not meet one of the three criteria for progression, as the recruitment rate was lower than hypothesised. Once patients were recruited to the trial, compliance and retention in the trial were both high. The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase the numbers recruited. The economic analysis suggests that further research in this area is likely to be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase recruitment. The appropriate research question and design of a future study needs to be identified. More work is needed to understand the experiences of nasogastric tube feeding in patients undergoing CRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48569216. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.