Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT compared with positron emission tomography CT to characterise solitary pulmonary nodules : the SPUtNIk diagnostic accuracy study and economic modelling

Background 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. Objectives 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. Design Multicentre comparative accuracy trial. Setting Secondary or tertiary outpatient settings at 16 hospitals in the UK. Participants Participants with solitary pulmonary nodules of ≥ 8 mm and of ≤ 30 mm in size with no malignancy in the previous 2 years were included. Interventions Baseline positron emission tomography–computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography with 2 years’ follow-up. Main outcome measures 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. Results 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). Limitations 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. Conclusions 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. Future work 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. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018112215 and CRD42019124299, and the trial is registered as ISRCTN30784948 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02013063

Comparative Accuracy and Cost-Effectiveness of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography in the Characterisation of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules

Abstract Introduction: Dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (DCE-CT) and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) have a high reported accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of these. Methods: In this prospective multicentre trial, 380 participants with a solitary pulmonary nodule (8-30mm) and no recent history of malignancy underwent DCE-CT and PET/CT. All patients underwent either biopsy with histological diagnosis or completed CT follow-up. Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy for PET/CT and DCE-CT. Costs and cost-effectiveness were estimated from a healthcare provider perspective using a decision-model. Results: 312 participants (47% female, 68.1±9.0 years) completed the study, with 61% rate of malignancy at 2 years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values for DCE-CT were 95.3% [95% CI 91.3;97.5], 29.8% [95% CI 22.3;38.4], 68.2% [95% CI 62.4%;73.5%] and 80.0% [95% CI 66.2;89.1] respectively, and for PET/CT were 79.1% [95% CI 72.7;84.2], 81.8% [95% CI 74.0;87.7], 87.3%[95% CI 81.5;91.5) and 71·2% [95% CI 63.2;78.1]. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for DCE-CT and PET/CT was 0.62 [95%CI 0.58;0.67] and 0.80 [95%CI 0.76;0.85] respectively (p<0.001). Combined results significantly increased diagnostic accuracy over PET/CT alone (AUROC=0.90 [95%CI 0.86;0.93], p<0.001). DCE-CT was preferred when the willingness to pay per incremental cost per correctly treated malignancy was below £9000. Above £15500 a combined approach was preferred. Conclusions: PET/CT has a superior diagnostic accuracy to DCE-CT for the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules. Combining both techniques improves the diagnostic accuracy over either test alone and could be cost-effective. (Clinical trials.gov - NCT02013063)

Associations of autozygosity with a broad range of human phenotypes

In many species, the offspring of related parents suffer reduced reproductive success, a phenomenon known as inbreeding depression. In humans, the importance of this effect has remained unclear, partly because reproduction between close relatives is both rare and frequently associated with confounding social factors. Here, using genomic inbreeding coefficients (FROH) for >1.4 million individuals, we show that FROH is significantly associated (p < 0.0005) with apparently deleterious changes in 32 out of 100 traits analysed. These changes are associated with runs of homozygosity (ROH), but not with common variant homozygosity, suggesting that genetic variants associated with inbreeding depression are predominantly rare. The effect on fertility is striking: FROH equivalent to the offspring of first cousins is associated with a 55% decrease [95% CI 44–66%] in the odds of having children. Finally, the effects of FROH are confirmed within full-sibling pairs, where the variation in FROH is independent of all environmental confounding

ATA operations

Four accelerator parameters were found to control the condition of the electron beam entering the Intergrated Fast Reactor (IFR). These parameters were the matching of the electron beam to the ion channel, the laser timing, the benzene pressure at the entrance to the IFR, and the timing of the accelerator gaps. Manipulation of these parameters make possible the control of the total current, the emittance, the pulse length, the mixture of laser induced current and cathode current, the radial growth in time, the final size of the beam, and the energy variation through the pulse. 1 fig