Reports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

Background Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is recommended to triage women for exenterative surgery and surveillance after treatment for advanced cervical cancer.Objective To evaluate diagnostic accuracy of additional whole body PET-CT compared with CT/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone in women with suspected recurrent/persistent cervical cancer and in asymptomatic women as surveillance.Design Systematic reviews. Subjective elicitation to supplement diagnostic information. Search strategy/Selection criteria/Data collection and analysisSearches of electronic databases were performed to June 2013. Studies in women with suspected recurrent/persistent cervical cancer and in asymptomatic women undergoing follow up with sufficient numeric data were included. We calculated sensitivity, specificity and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analyses employed a bivariate model that included a random-effects term for between-study variations (CT studies) and univariate random effects meta-analyses (PET-CT studies) for sensitivity and specificity separately.Subjective elicitation Prevalence of recurrence and the accuracy of imaging elicited using the allocation of points technique. Coherence of elicited subjective probabilities with estimates in the literature examined.Results We identified 15 relevant studies; none directly compared additional PET-CT with MRI or CT separately. Most CT and MRI studies used older protocols and the majority did not distinguish between asymptomatic and symptomatic women. Meta-analysis of nine PET-CT studies in mostly symptomatic women showed sensitivity of 94.8 (95% CI 91.2-96.9), and specificity of 86.9% (95% CI 82.2-90.5). The summary estimate of the sensitivity of CT for detection of recurrence was 89.64% (95% CI 81.59-94.41) and specificity was 76% (95% CI 43.68-92.82). Meta-analysis for MRI test accuracy studies was not possible because of clinical heterogeneity. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI in pelvic recurrence varied between 82 and 100% and between 78 and 100%, respectively. Formal statistical comparisons of the accuracy of index tests were not possible. Subjective elicitation provided estimates comparable to the literature. Subjective estimates of the increase in accuracy from the addition of PET-CT were less than elicited increases required to justify the use in PET-CT for surveillance.Conclusion Evidence to support additional PET-CT is scarce, of average quality and does not distinguish between application for surveillance and diagnosis. Guidelines recommending PET-CT in recurrent cervical cancer need to be reconsidered in the light of the existing evidence base.

Background:The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy with technetium 99 (99mTc) and/or blue dye-enhanced lymphoscintigraphy in vulval cancer.Methods:Sensitive searches of databases were performed upto October 2013. Studies with at least 75% of women with FIGO stage IB or II vulval cancer evaluating SLN biopsy with 99mTc, blue dye or both with reference standard of inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) or clinical follow-up were included. Meta-analyses were performed using Meta-Disc version 1.4.Results:Of the 2950 references, 29 studies (1779 women) were included; most of them evaluated 99mTc combined with blue dye. Of these, 24 studies reported results for SLN followed by IFL, and 5 reported clinical follow-up only for SLN negatives. Pooling of all studies was inappropriate because of heterogeneity. Mean SLN detection rates were 94.0% for 99mTc, 68.7% for blue dye and 97.7% for both. SLN biopsy had pooled sensitivity of 95% (95% CI 92–98%) with negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% in studies using 99mTc/blue dye, ultrastaging and immunohistochemistry with IFL as reference. Pooled sensitivity for SLN with clinical follow-up for SLN-negatives was 91% (85–95%) with NPV 95.6%. Patients undergoing SLN biopsy experienced less morbidity than those undergoing IFL.Conclusions:Sentinel lymph node biopsy using 99mTC, blue dye and ultrastaging with immunohistochemistry is highly accurate when restricted to carefully selected patients, within a rigorous protocol, with close follow-up and where sufficient numbers for learning curve optimisation exist. Patients must make an informed choice between the slightly higher groin recurrence rates of SLN biopsy vs the greater morbidity of IFL.

Objective To undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis that compares positron emission tomography -computed tomography (PET-CT) imaging plus standard practice with standard practice alone in the diagnosis of recurrent or persistent cervical cancer during routine surveillance and follow-up of women who have previously been diagnosed and treated.Design Model-based economic evaluation using data from a systematic review, supplemented with data from other sources, and taking a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.Setting Secondary Care in England.Population Women at least 3 months after the completion of treatment, with either recurrent or persistent cervical cancer.Methods A state transition (Markov) model was developed using TREEAGE PRO 2011. The structure of the model was informed by the reviews of the trials and clinical input. In the model, two diagnostic strategies were examined. A one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and a value of information analysis were also carried out.Main outcome measures Cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).Results Adding PET-CT to the current treatment strategy of clinical examination and scanning [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or CT scan] during the routine surveillance and follow-up of women with recurrent or persistent cervical cancer is significantly more costly, with only a minimal increase in effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the strategy of PET-CT as an adjunct to the standard treatment strategy that included clinical examination, MRI, and/or CT scan, compared with the usual treatment alone, was over £1 million per QALY. ConclusionThe results of the current analysis suggest that use of PET-CT in the diagnosis of recurrent or persistent cervical cancer is not cost-effective. Current guidelines recommending imaging using PET-CT as a diagnostic or surveillance tool need to be reconsidered in light of these results. This study did not specifically investigate the use of PET-CT in women with symptoms and radiological suspicion of recurrence where exenteration was considered. More research in that specific area is required.

No abstract