Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer

Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer

BACKGROUND

Periampullary cancer includes cancer of the head and neck of the pancreas, cancer of the distal end of the bile duct, cancer of the ampulla of Vater, and cancer of the second part of the duodenum. Surgical resection is the only established potentially curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. A considerable proportion of patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because of underestimation of the extent of the cancer on computed tomography (CT) scanning. Other imaging methods such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), PET-CT, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have been used to detect local invasion or distant metastases not visualised on CT scanning which could prevent unnecessary laparotomy. No systematic review or meta-analysis has examined the role of different imaging modalities in assessing the resectability with curative intent in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI, PET scan, and EUS performed as an add-on test or PET-CT as a replacement test to CT scanning in detecting curative resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases up to 5 November 2015. Two review authors independently screened the references and selected the studies for inclusion. We also searched for articles related to the included studies by performing the "related search" function in MEDLINE (OvidSP) and Embase (OvidSP) and a "citing reference" search (by searching the articles that cite the included articles).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of MRI, PET scan, PET-CT, and EUS in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer on CT scan. We accepted any criteria of resectability used in the studies. We included studies irrespective of language, publication status, or study design (prospective or retrospective). We excluded case-control studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies - 2) tool. Although we planned to use bivariate methods for analysis of sensitivities and specificities, we were able to fit only the univariate fixed-effect models for both sensitivity and specificity because of the paucity of data. We calculated the probability of unresectability in patients who had a positive index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) and in those with negative index test (post-test probability of unresectability in people with a positive test result) using the mean probability of unresectability (pre-test probability) from the included studies and the positive and negative likelihood ratios derived from the model. The difference between the pre-test and post-test probabilities gave the overall added value of the index test compared to the standard practice of CT scan staging alone.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two studies (34 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Both studies evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of EUS in assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic cancers. There was low concerns about applicability for most domains in both studies. The overall risk of bias was low in one study and unclear or high in the second study. The mean probability of unresectable disease after CT scan across studies was 60.5% (that is 61 out of 100 patients who had resectable cancer after CT scan had unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary estimate of sensitivity of EUS for unresectability was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.97) and the summary estimate of specificity for unresectability was 0.80 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.96). The positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 4.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 18.6) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.8) respectively. At the mean pre-test probability of 60.5%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a positive EUS (EUS indicating unresectability) was 86.9% (95% CI 60.9% to 96.6%) and the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a negative EUS (EUS indicating resectability) was 20.0% (5.1% to 53.7%). This means that 13% of people (95% CI 3% to 39%) with positive EUS have potentially resectable cancer and 20% (5% to 53%) of people with negative EUS have unresectable cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on two small studies, there is significant uncertainty in the utility of EUS in people with pancreatic cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. No studies have assessed the utility of EUS in people with periampullary cancer.There is no evidence to suggest that it should be performed routinely in people with pancreatic cancer or periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan.

Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. A considerable proportion of patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because of underestimation of the extent of the cancer on computed tomography (CT) scanning. Laparoscopy can detect metastases not visualised on CT scanning, enabling better assessment of the spread of cancer (staging of cancer). This is an update to a previous Cochrane Review published in 2013 evaluating the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in assessing the resectability with curative intent in people with pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic laparoscopy performed as an add-on test to CT scanning in the assessment of curative resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via OvidSP (from inception to 15 May 2016), and Science Citation Index Expanded (from 1980 to 15 May 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of diagnostic laparoscopy in people with potentially resectable pancreatic and periampullary cancer on CT scan, where confirmation of liver or peritoneal involvement was by histopathological examination of suspicious (liver or peritoneal) lesions obtained at diagnostic laparoscopy or laparotomy. We accepted any criteria of resectability used in the studies. We included studies irrespective of language, publication status, or study design (prospective or retrospective). We excluded case-control studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. The specificity of diagnostic laparoscopy in all studies was 1 because there were no false positives since laparoscopy and the reference standard are one and the same if histological examination after diagnostic laparoscopy is positive. The sensitivities were therefore meta-analysed using a univariate random-effects logistic regression model. The probability of unresectability in people who had a negative laparoscopy (post-test probability for people with a negative test result) was calculated using the median probability of unresectability (pre-test probability) from the included studies, and the negative likelihood ratio derived from the model (specificity of 1 assumed). The difference between the pre-test and post-test probabilities gave the overall added value of diagnostic laparoscopy compared to the standard practice of CT scan staging alone.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with a total of 1146 participants in the meta-analysis. Only one study including 52 participants had a low risk of bias and low applicability concern in the patient selection domain. The median pre-test probability of unresectable disease after CT scanning across studies was 41.4% (that is 41 out of 100 participants who had resectable cancer after CT scan were found to have unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary sensitivity of diagnostic laparoscopy was 64.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 50.1% to 76.6%). Assuming a pre-test probability of 41.4%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for participants with a negative test result was 0.20 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.27). This indicates that if a person is said to have resectable disease after diagnostic laparoscopy and CT scan, there is a 20% probability that their cancer will be unresectable compared to a 41% probability for those receiving CT alone.A subgroup analysis of people with pancreatic cancer gave a summary sensitivity of 67.9% (95% CI 41.1% to 86.5%). The post-test probability of unresectable disease after being considered resectable on both CT and diagnostic laparoscopy was 18% compared to 40.0% for those receiving CT alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic laparoscopy may decrease the rate of unnecessary laparotomy in people with pancreatic and periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. On average, using diagnostic laparoscopy with biopsy and histopathological confirmation of suspicious lesions prior to laparotomy would avoid 21 unnecessary laparotomies in 100 people in whom resection of cancer with curative intent is planned.

Impact of delay between imaging and treatment in patients with potentially curable pancreatic cancer

Background

Locoregional pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may progress rapidly and/or disseminate despite having an early stage at diagnostic imaging. A prolonged interval from imaging to resection might represent a risk factor for encountering tumour progression at laparotomy. The aim of this study was to determine the therapeutic window for timely surgical intervention.

Methods

This observational cohort study included patients with histologically confirmed PDAC scheduled for resection with curative intent from 2008 to 2014. The impact of imaging-to-resection/reassessment (IR) interval, vascular involvement and tumour size on local tumour progression or presence of metastases at reimaging or laparotomy was evaluated using univariable and multivariable regression. Risk estimates were approximated using hazard ratios (HRs).

Results

Median IR interval was 42 days. Of 349 patients scheduled for resection, 82 had unresectable disease (resectability rate 76·5 per cent). The unresectability rate was zero when the IR interval was 22 days or shorter, and was lower for an IR interval of 32 days or less compared with longer waiting times (13 versus 26·2 per cent; HR 0·42, P = 0·021). It was also lower for tumours smaller than 30 mm than for larger tumours (13·9 versus 32·5 per cent; HR 0·34, P < 0·001). Tumours with no or minor vascular involvement showed decreased rates of unresectable disease (20·6 per cent versus 38 per cent when there was major or combined vascular involvement; HR 0·43, P = 0·007). However, this failed to reach statistical significance on multivariable analysis (P = 0·411), in contrast to IR interval (P = 0·028) and tumour size (P < 0·001).

Conclusion

Operation within 32 days of diagnostic imaging reduced the risk of tumour progression to unresectable disease by half compared with a longer waiting time. The results of this study highlight the importance of efficient clinical PDAC management.

PET/CT with (11)C-choline for evaluation of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: meta-analysis and critical review of available data

PURPOSE

For the last decade PET and PET/CT with (11)C-choline have been proposed for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PC), but the diagnostic performance of (11)C-choline PET/CT is still a matter of debate. We performed a comprehensive review of the most important clinical application of (11)C-choline PET, restaging of patients with biochemical relapse, following a rigorous methodological approach and including assessment of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature assessing (11)C-choline PET/CT for its accuracy in the diagnosis and ability to detect the site of recurrence of PC in the restaging of patients with biochemical recurrence after initial treatment with curative intent.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library to determine the accuracy for the detection of the site of recurrence (prostate bed recurrences, metastatic spread to locoregional pelvic lymph nodes or distant metastases). Only studies with a reference standard (for prostatic bed histopathology, for histopathology or biopsy of distant metastases or a composite reference standard with clinical follow-up of at least 12 months, correlative imaging and clinical data) were included.

RESULTS

Overall 425 studies were retrieved, of which 43 were judged as potentially relevant and 29 with 2,686 participants were finally included. Of these 29 studies, 18 reported results for any relapse, All 18 studies, with a total of 2,126 participants, reported detection rates. The pooled rate was 62 % (95 % CI 53 - 71 %). Of the 18 studies, 12 with 1,270 participants reported useful data to derive sensitivity and specificity. The pooled sensitivity was 89 % (95 % CI 83 - 93 %) and the pooled specificity was 89 % (95 % CI 73 - 96 %). Of 11 studies reporting results for local relapse, 9 with 993 participants reported detection rates. The pooled rate was 27 % (95 % CI 16 - 38 %). Six studies with 491 participants reported sensitivity and specificity. The pooled sensitivity was 61 % (95 % CI 40 - 80 %) and the pooled specificity was 97 % (95 % CI 87 - 99 %). Ten studies reported results for lymph nodes and distant metastases. For nodal disease, 7 studies with 752 participants reported detection rates. The pooled rate was 36 % (95 % CI 22 - 50 %). For bone metastases, 8 studies with 775 participants reported detection rates. The pooled rate was 25 % (95 % CI 16 - 34 %).

CONCLUSION

There is a significant amount of (11)C-choline PET data published showing a high degree of consistency in inclusion criteria, acquisition protocols and scan interpretation criteria. Furthermore, the quality of the data derived limited to the same standard of reference was acceptable. Despite a high variability in the observed prevalence of any relapse, the diagnostic performance of (11)C-choline PET was in line with previous meta-analyses. Our data confirm the very good accuracy of (11)C-choline PET for detection of lymph node metastases and/or distant lesions in a single examination in patients with biochemical relapse.