Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT compared with positron emission tomography CT to characterise solitary pulmonary nodules: the SPUtNIk diagnostic accuracy study and economic modelling
Gilbert FJ, Harris S, Miles KA, Weir-McCall JR, Qureshi NR, Rintoul RC, Dizdarevic S, Pike L, Sinclair D, Shah A, Eaton R, Clegg A, Benedetto V, Hill JE, Cook A, Tzelis D, Vale L, Brindle L, Madden J, Cozens K, Little LA, Eichhorst K, Moate P, McClement C, Peebles C, Banerjee A, Han S, Poon FW, Groves AM, Kurban L, Frew AJ, Callister ME, Crosbie P, Gleeson FV, Karunasaagarar K, Kankam O, George S
Record ID 32018002343
Authors' objectives: 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. 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.
Authors' results and conclusions: 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). 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.
Authors' methods: Multicentre comparative accuracy trial. Secondary or tertiary outpatient settings at 16 hospitals in the UK. Participants with solitary pulmonary nodules of ≥ 8 mm and of ≤ 30 mm in size with no malignancy in the previous 2 years were included. Baseline positron emission tomography–computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography with 2 years’ follow-up. 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. 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.
Authors' identified further reserach: 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.
Project Status: Completed
URL for project: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/0922117
Year Published: 2022
URL for published report: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/WCEI8321
URL for additional information: English
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Full HTA
Country: England, United Kingdom
- Positron-Emission Tomography
- Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
- Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
- Solitary Pulmonary Nodule
- Lung Neoplasms
- Models, Economic
- SOLITARY PULMONARY NODULE (SPN)
- DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING
- LUNG CANCER
- DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY TRIAL
Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name: firstname.lastname@example.org
Contact Email: email@example.com
Copyright: Gilbert et al.
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.