Summary 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...

Background Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multimodality staging of colorectal cancer, 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 colorectal cancer. Methods The Streamline C trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or polyp cancer. 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 ISRCTN43958015, and is complete.

ObjectiveTo describe the experience and acceptability of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) staging compared with standard scans among patients with highly suspected or known colorectal or lung cancer.DesignQualitative study using one-to-one interviews with thematic analysis.SettingPatients recruited from 10 hospitals in London, East and South East England between March 2013 and July 2014.Participants51 patients (31 male, age range 40–89 years), with varying levels of social deprivation, were recruited consecutively from two parallel clinical trials comparing the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of WB-MRI with standard scans for staging colorectal and lung cancer (‘Streamline-C’ and ‘Streamline-L’). WB-MRI was offered as an additional scan as part of the trials.ResultsIn general WB-MRI presented a greater challenge than standard scans, although all but four patients completed the WB-MRI. Key challenges were enclosed space, noise and scan duration; reduced patient tolerance was associated with claustrophobia, pulmonary symptoms and existing comorbidities. Coping strategies facilitated scan tolerance and were grouped into (1) those intended to help with physical and emotional challenges, and (2) those focused on motivation to complete the scan, for example focusing on health benefit. Our study suggests that good staff communication could reduce anxiety and boost coping strategies.ConclusionsAlthough WB-MRI was perceived as more challenging than standard scans, it was sufficiently acceptable and tolerated by most patients to potentially replace them if appropriate.Trial registration numberISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483.