Original Article
Lung cancer staging: the value of PET depends on the clinical setting
Abstract
Background: Although positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is widely recommended in the evaluation of patients with lung cancer, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing this have demonstrated inconsistent results. We asked whether differences in the clinical context and endpoints could explain these discrepancies.
Methods: We used realist synthesis methods to analyze how contextual differences among RCTs affected the results. We focused on RCTs to minimize confounding yet permit evaluation of differences by comparing across studies.
Results: This analysis suggests that the impact of PET depends on the clinical setting. PET is of greatest benefit in identifying M1 disease in patients with a high chance of such involvement and when little traditional imaging [e.g., abdominal/pelvis computed tomography (CT) and bone scan] is used. Identification of N2,3 involvement by PET prior to resection is seen primarily when there is at least a moderate probability of such and the rate of invasive staging is high. The rate of N2 disease not identified preoperatively appears to increase if PET is used to avoid invasive mediastinal staging in clinical settings in which the risk of N2,3 involvement is moderately high. There is both a potential benefit in avoiding stage-inappropriate resection as well as a risk of missed (stage-appropriate) resection if PET findings are not evaluated carefully.
Conclusions: A blanket recommendation for PET may be too simplistic without considering nuances of the clinical setting.
Methods: We used realist synthesis methods to analyze how contextual differences among RCTs affected the results. We focused on RCTs to minimize confounding yet permit evaluation of differences by comparing across studies.
Results: This analysis suggests that the impact of PET depends on the clinical setting. PET is of greatest benefit in identifying M1 disease in patients with a high chance of such involvement and when little traditional imaging [e.g., abdominal/pelvis computed tomography (CT) and bone scan] is used. Identification of N2,3 involvement by PET prior to resection is seen primarily when there is at least a moderate probability of such and the rate of invasive staging is high. The rate of N2 disease not identified preoperatively appears to increase if PET is used to avoid invasive mediastinal staging in clinical settings in which the risk of N2,3 involvement is moderately high. There is both a potential benefit in avoiding stage-inappropriate resection as well as a risk of missed (stage-appropriate) resection if PET findings are not evaluated carefully.
Conclusions: A blanket recommendation for PET may be too simplistic without considering nuances of the clinical setting.
