NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Imaging Tests for the Staging of Colorectal Cancer
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 142
Investigators: Wendy Bruening, PhD, Nancy Sullivan, BA, Emily Carter Paulson, MD, MSCE, Hanna Zafar, MD, MHS, Matthew Mitchell, PhD, Jonathan Treadwell, PhD, and Karen Schoelles, MD, SM, FACP.
Author Information and AffiliationsStructured Abstract
Objective:
Colorectal cancer is both the third most common type of cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related death for both men and women. Treatment options for colorectal cancer differ depending on the clinical stage of disease at diagnosis. Our objective was to synthesize the available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of imaging tests for staging colorectal cancer.
Data sources:
We searched Embase®, MEDLINE®, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from 1980 through November 2013 for published, English-language, full-length articles on using endoscopic rectal ultrasound (ERUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT for staging colorectal cancer. The searches identified 4,683 citations; after dual screening against the inclusion criteria, 8 systematic reviews and 65 primary comparative studies were included.
Methods:
We performed dual data abstraction from the included studies and constructed evidence tables. Where possible, we pooled the data using binomial-bivariate random-effects regression models (for diagnostic accuracy outcomes) or using random-effects meta-analysis (for under- and overstaging and under- and overtreatment outcomes). We rated the risk of bias of individual studies using internal validity instruments and graded the overall strength of evidence of conclusions using four domains (study limitations, consistency, precision, directness).
Results:
Preoperative staging: For preoperative rectal cancer T (tumor) staging, ERUS is more accurate than CT; ERUS is less likely than CT to incorrectly stage (odds ratio [OR] = 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.54), less likely to understage (OR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.89), and less likely to overstage (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.80), supported by evidence of low strength. For preoperative rectal cancer T staging, MRI and ERUS were similar in accuracy, supported by evidence of low strength. There was no statistical difference in accuracy between MRI and CT, but there were few patients in the available studies. For preoperative rectal cancer N (lymph node) staging, CT, MRI, and ERUS were similar in overall accuracy, but all three modalities had limited sensitivity. MRI was less likely to overstage preoperative rectal cancer N stage than CT (OR = 0.498; 95% CI, 0.308 to 0.806), supported by evidence of low strength. We identified only one study of preoperative T and N staging of colorectal cancer using CT versus PET/CT. Nine studies reported on preoperative colorectal M (metastasis) staging. MRI is more sensitive than CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases (OR = 1.3, 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.8), supported by evidence of moderate strength.
Restaging: There is no statistically significant difference in accuracy across MRI, CT, or ERUS for interim rectal T restaging, supported by evidence of low strength. The evidence was insufficient for drawing conclusions regarding other interim restaging outcomes for rectal or colorectal cancer following initial treatment.
Harms: While perforation, bleeding, and pain are potential complications of ERUS, most studies reporting complications mentioned only mild discomfort or minor bleeding. Rare but potential harms of MRI are associated with use of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Harms of CT include radiation exposure and adverse events from intravenous contrast agents.
Conclusions:
ERUS is preferable to CT for preoperative rectal cancer T staging (based on evidence of low strength). Moderate-strength evidence suggests MRI is preferable to CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases. Low-strength evidence suggests that CT, MRI, and ERUS are comparable for rectal cancer N staging, where all have limited sensitivity, and for interim rectal cancer T restaging. Evidence was insufficient to allow any evidence-based conclusions about the use of PET/CT for colorectal cancer staging.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Key Informants
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Introduction
- Results of Literature Searches
- Test Performance of Imaging Modalities for Pretreatment Staging
- Comparative Test Performance of Imaging Modalities for Pretreatment Staging
- Comparative and Additive Impact of Imaging Modalities on Stage Reclassification and Management
- Comparative and Additive Impact of Imaging Modalities on Clinical Outcomes
- Adverse Effects Associated With Imaging Techniques
- Factors Affecting Accuracy
- Conclusions for Key Question 1
- Comparative Test Performance of Imaging Modalities for Restaging After Initial Treatment
- Comparative and Additive Impact of Imaging Modalities on Stage Reclassification and Management
- Comparative and Additive Impact of Imaging Modalities on Clinical Outcomes
- Adverse Effects Associated With Imaging Techniques
- Factors Affecting Accuracy
- Conclusions for Key Question 2
- Discussion
- References
- Abbreviations and Acronyms
- Glossary of Selected Terms
- Appendix A Search Strategy
- Appendix B Excluded Studies
- Appendix C Evidence Tables
- Appendix D Analyses and Risk of Bias Assessments
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2012-00011-I. Prepared by: ECRI Institute-Penn Medicine Evidence-based Practice Center, Plymouth Meeting, PA
Suggested citation:
Bruening W, Sullivan N, Carter Paulson E, Zafar H, Mitchell M, Treadwell J, Schoelles K. Imaging Tests for the Staging of Colorectal Cancer. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 142. (Prepared by the ECRI Institute-Penn Medicine Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00011-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC046-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by the ECRI Institute-Penn Medicine Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2012-00011-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
This report may periodically be assessed for the urgency to update. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Review Imaging for the Pretreatment Staging of Small Cell Lung Cancer[ 2016]Review Imaging for the Pretreatment Staging of Small Cell Lung CancerTreadwell JR, Mitchell MD, Tsou A, Torigian D, Aggarwal C, Schoelles KM. 2016 Apr
- Review Imaging Tests for the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma[ 2014]Review Imaging Tests for the Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic AdenocarcinomaTreadwell J, Mitchell M, Eatmon K, Jue J, Zafar H, Teitelbaum U, Schoelles K. 2014 Sep
- Review Imaging Techniques for the Diagnosis and Staging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma[ 2014]Review Imaging Techniques for the Diagnosis and Staging of Hepatocellular CarcinomaChou R, Cuevas C, Fu R, Devine B, Wasson N, Ginsburg A, Zakher B, Pappas M, Graham E, Sullivan S. 2014 Oct
- Accuracy of endorectal ultrasonography and computed tomography for restaging rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiation.[J Am Coll Surg. 2008]Accuracy of endorectal ultrasonography and computed tomography for restaging rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiation.Huh JW, Park YA, Jung EJ, Lee KY, Sohn SK. J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Jul; 207(1):7-12. Epub 2008 Apr 14.
- Review Low-Dose Aspirin for the Prevention of Morbidity and Mortality From Preeclampsia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2014]Review Low-Dose Aspirin for the Prevention of Morbidity and Mortality From Preeclampsia: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceHenderson JT, Whitlock EP, O'Conner E, Senger CA, Thompson JH, Rowland MG. 2014 Apr
- Imaging Tests for the Staging of Colorectal CancerImaging Tests for the Staging of Colorectal Cancer
- Intravascular Diagnostic Procedures and Imaging Techniques Versus Angiography Al...Intravascular Diagnostic Procedures and Imaging Techniques Versus Angiography Alone in Coronary Artery Stenting: Comparative Effectiveness Review
- Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal SurgeryOral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal Surgery
- Emerging Approaches to Diagnosis and Treatment of Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Ca...Emerging Approaches to Diagnosis and Treatment of Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
- Enabling Health Care Decisionmaking Through Clinical Decision Support and Knowle...Enabling Health Care Decisionmaking Through Clinical Decision Support and Knowledge Management
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...