Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives To determine and compare the diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), using conventional coronary angiography (CCA) as the reference standard. Methods We searched Medline and Embase for literature that evaluated stress MPI for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), contrastenhanced echocardiography (ECHO), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET). Results All pooled analyses were based on random effects models. Articles on MRI yielded a total of 2,970 patients from 28 studies, articles on ECHO yielded a sample size of 795 from 10 studies, articles on SPECT yielded 1,323 from 13 studies. For CAD defined as either at least 50 %, at least 70 % or at least 75 % lumen diameter reduction on CCA, the natural logarithms of the diagnostic odds ratio (lnDOR) for MRI (3.63; 95 % CI 3.26-4.00) was significantly higher compared to that of SPECT (2.76; 95 % CI 2.28-3.25; P=0.006) and that of ECHO (2.83; 95 % CI 2.29-3.37; P=0.02). There was no significant difference between the lnDOR of SPECT and ECHO (P=0.52). Conclusion Our results suggest that MRI is superior for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD compared with ECHO and SPECT. ECHO and SPECT demonstrated similar diagnostic performance. Key Points ̇ MRI can assess myocardial perfusion. ̇ MR perfusion diagnoses coronary artery disease better than echocardiography or SPECT. ̇ Echocardiography and SPECT have similar diagnostic performance. ̇ MRI can save coronary artery disease patients from more invasive tests. ̇ MRI and SPECT show evidence of publication bias, implying possible overestimation

Colorectal liver metastases: Surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION) - a phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. Methods: In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Discussion: If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising oncological outcome for patients with CRLM. Trial registration:NCT03088150 , January 11th 2017