14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preoperative imaging for colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide population‐based study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) preoperative imaging may include contrast‐enhanced (ce) MRI and [ 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18F‐FDG) PET–CT. This study assessed trends and variation between hospitals and oncological networks in the use of preoperative imaging in the Netherlands.

          Methods

          Data for all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2018 were retrieved from a nationwide auditing database. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess use of ceMRI, 18F‐FDG PET–CT and combined ceMRI and 18F‐FDG PET–CT, and trends in preoperative imaging and hospital and oncological network variation.

          Results

          A total of 4510 patients were included, of whom 1562 had ceMRI, 872 had 18F‐FDG PET–CT, and 1293 had combined ceMRI and 18F‐FDG PET–CT. Use of ceMRI increased over time (from 9·6 to 26·2 per cent; P < 0·001), use of 18F‐FDG PET–CT decreased (from 28·6 to 6·0 per cent; P < 0·001), and use of both ceMRI and 18F‐FDG PET–CT 16·9 per cent) remained stable. Unadjusted variation in the use of ceMRI, 18F‐FDG PET–CT, and combined ceMRI and 18F‐FDG PET–CT ranged from 5·6 to 100 per cent between hospitals. After case‐mix correction, hospital and oncological network variation was found for all imaging modalities.

          Discussion

          Significant variation exists concerning the use of preoperative imaging for CRLM between hospitals and oncological networks in the Netherlands. The use of MRI is increasing, whereas that of 18F‐FDG PET–CT is decreasing.

          Abstract

          A nationwide population‐based overview from 2014 to 2018 in the Netherlands showed an increased use of contrast‐enhanced MRI and decreased use of PET–CT. There was significant hospital variation in the use of both MRI and PET–CT.

          Wide variation in the use of preoperative MRI and FDG‐PET‐CT

          Translated abstract

          Antecedentes

          En pacientes con metástasis hepáticas colorrectales ( colorrectal liver metastases, CRLM), los estudios de imagen preoperatorios pueden incluir resonancia magnética con contraste (ce)MRI y 18F‐FDG‐PET‐CT. Este estudio evaluó las tendencias y la variación entre los hospitales y las redes oncológicas en el uso de estudios de imagen preoperatorios en los Países Bajos.

          Métodos

          Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección hepática por CRLM en los Países Bajos entre 2014 y 2018 fueron seleccionados a partir de una base de datos a nivel nacional auditada. El análisis de regresión logística multivariable se utilizó para evaluar el uso de ceMRI, de 18F‐FDG‐PET‐CT y de ceMRI combinado con 18F‐FDG‐PET‐CT, así como para determinar las tendencias en los estudios de imagen preoperatorios y las variaciones hospitalarias y de la red oncológica.

          Resultados

          En total, se incluyeron 4.510 pacientes, de los cuales 1.562 se sometieron a ceMRI, 872 a 18F‐FDG‐PET‐CT y 1.293 a ceMRI combinado con 18F‐FDG‐PET‐CT. El uso de ceMRI aumentó con el tiempo del 9,6% al 26,2% ( P < 0,001), el uso de 18F‐FDG‐PET‐CT disminuyó (25% a 6,0%, P < 0,001) y el uso de ceMRI y 18F‐FDG‐PET‐ CT (17%) se mantuvo estable. La variación no ajustada entre hospitales en el uso de ceMRI, 18F‐FDG‐PET‐CT y la combinación de ceMRI y 18F‐FDG‐PET‐CT oscilaba del 5% al 10%. Después de la corrección por case‐mix, la variación hospitalaria y de la red oncológica persistía en todas las pruebas de imagen.

          Conclusión

          En los Países Bajos existe una variación significativa entre hospitales y redes oncológicas respecto al uso de pruebas de imagen preoperatorias para el CRLM. El uso de MRI está aumentando, mientras que el uso de 18F‐FDG‐PET‐CT está disminuyendo.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment.

          To obtain diagnostic performance values of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), and FDG PET/CT in the detection of colorectal liver metastases in patients who have not previously undergone therapy. A comprehensive search was performed for articles published from January 1990 to January 2010 that fulfilled the following criteria: a prospective study design was used; the study population included at least 10 patients; patients had histopathologically proved colorectal cancer; CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, or FDG PET/CT was performed for the detection of liver metastases; intraoperative findings or those from histopathologic examination or follow-up were used as the reference standard; and data for calculating sensitivity and specificity were included. Study design characteristics, patient characteristics, imaging features, reference tests, and 2 × 2 tables were recorded. Thirty-nine articles (3391 patients) were included. Variation existed in study design characteristics, patient descriptions, imaging features, and reference tests. The sensitivity estimates of CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET on a per-lesion basis were 74.4%, 80.3%, and 81.4%, respectively. On a per-patient basis, the sensitivities of CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET were 83.6%, 88.2%, and 94.1%, respectively. The per-patient sensitivity of CT was lower than that of FDG PET (P = .025). Specificity estimates were comparable. For lesions smaller than 10 mm, the sensitivity estimates for MR imaging were higher than those for CT. No differences were seen for lesions measuring at least 10 mm. The sensitivity of MR imaging increased significantly after January 2004. The use of liver-specific contrast material and multisection CT scanners did not provide improved results. Data about FDG PET/CT were too limited for comparisons with other modalities. MR imaging is the preferred first-line modality for evaluating colorectal liver metastases in patients who have not previously undergone therapy. FDG PET can be used as the second-line modality. The role of FDG PET/CT is not yet clear owing to the small number of studies. http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100729/-/DC1. © RSNA, 2010
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines for resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of PET before liver resection on surgical management for colorectal adenocarcinoma metastases: a randomized clinical trial.

              Patients with colorectal cancer with liver metastases undergo hepatic resection with curative intent. Positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET-CT) could help avoid noncurative surgery by identifying patients with occult metastases. To determine the effect of preoperative PET-CT vs no PET-CT (control) on the surgical management of patients with resectable metastases and to investigate the effect of PET-CT on survival and the association between the standardized uptake value (ratio of tissue radioactivity to injected radioactivity adjusted by weight) and survival. A randomized trial of patients older than 18 years with colorectal cancer treated by surgery, with resectable metastases based on CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis within the previous 30 days, and with a clear colonoscopy within the previous 18 months was conducted between 2005 and 2013, involving 21 surgeons at 9 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, with PET-CT scanners at 5 academic institutions. Patients were randomized using a 2 to 1 ratio to PET-CT or control. The primary outcome was a change in surgical management defined as canceled hepatic surgery, more extensive hepatic surgery, or additional organ surgery based on the PET-CT. Survival was a secondary outcome. Of the 263 patients who underwent PET-CT, 21 had a change in surgical management (8.0%; 95% CI, 5.0%-11.9%). Specifically, 7 patients (2.7%) did not undergo laparotomy, 4 (1.5%) had more extensive hepatic surgery, 9 (3.4%) had additional organ surgery (8 of whom had hepatic resection), and the abdominal cavity was opened in 1 patient but hepatic surgery was not performed and the cavity was closed. Liver resection was performed in 91% of patients in the PET-CT group and 92% of the control group. After a median follow-up of 36 months, the estimated mortality rate was 11.13 (95% CI, 8.95-13.68) events/1000 person-months for the PET-CT group and 12.71 (95% CI, 9.40-16.80) events/1000 person-months for the control group. Survival did not differ between the 2 groups (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38). The standardized uptake value was associated with survival (hazard ratio, 1.11 [90% CI, 1.07-1.15] per unit increase; P < .001). The C statistic for the model including the standardized uptake value was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.68) and without it was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.44-0.56). The difference in C statistics is 0.12 (95% CI, 0.04-0.21). The low C statistic suggests that the standard uptake value is not a strong predictor of overall survival. Among patients with potentially resectable hepatic metastases of colorectal adenocarcinoma, the use of PET-CT compared with CT alone did not result in frequent change in surgical management. These findings raise questions about the value of PET-CT scans in this setting. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00265356.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.elfrink@dica.nl
                Journal
                BJS Open
                BJS Open
                10.1002/(ISSN)2474-9842
                BJS5
                BJS Open
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                2474-9842
                06 May 2020
                August 2020
                : 4
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1002/bjs5.v4.4 )
                : 605-621
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing Leiden the Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre Leiden the Netherlands
                [ 3 ] Department of Surgery University Medical Centre Groningen Groningen the Netherlands
                [ 4 ] Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Cancer Centre Amsterdam University of Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands
                [ 5 ] Department of Interventional Radiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Cancer Centre Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam the Netherlands
                [ 6 ] Department of Radiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre University of Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands
                [ 7 ] Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute Amsterdam the Netherlands
                [ 8 ] Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam the Netherlands
                [ 9 ] Departments of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre Maastricht the Netherlands
                [ 10 ] Radboud Medical Centre Nijmegen the Netherlands
                [ 11 ] University Medical Centre Utrecht Utrecht the Netherlands
                [ 12 ] Isala Zwolle the Netherlands
                [ 13 ] Máxima Medical Centre Veldhoven the Netherlands
                [ 14 ] Medisch Spectrum Twente Enschede the Netherlands
                [ 15 ] Amphia Medical Centre Breda the Netherlands
                [ 16 ] St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein the Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Dr A. K. E. Elfrink, Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, 2333 AA Leiden, the Netherlands (e‐mail: a.elfrink@ 123456dica.nl )
                [*]

                Members of the Dutch Hepato‐Biliary Audit Group are co‐authors and can be found under the heading Collaborators.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2332-2849
                Article
                BJS550291
                10.1002/bjs5.50291
                7397351
                32374497
                a60eeb62-6c63-4930-923c-cc4e2caac1b5
                © 2020 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Journal of Surgery Society

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 20 January 2020
                : 24 March 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 8, Pages: 17, Words: 6646
                Categories
                HPB
                Lower GI
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                August 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.8.6 mode:remove_FC converted:03.08.2020

                Comments

                Comment on this article