Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31080129›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2019

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer: the prospective Streamline L trial.

Stuart A Taylor, Sue Mallett, Simon Ball, Sandy Beare, Gauraang Bhatnagar, Angshu Bhowmik, Peter Boavida, John Bridgewater, Caroline S Clarke, Marian Duggan and 29 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. MRI for Lung Cancer Management: Any Closer to Clinical Application?Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Ex-vivo 1.5T MR Imaging versus CT in Estimating the Size of the Pathologically Invasive Component of Lung Adenocarcinoma Spectrum Lesions.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. The lung cancers: staging and response, CT,The British journal of radiology · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Whole-body MRI for cancer surveillance in ataxia-telangiectasia: A qualitative study of the perspectives of people affected by A-T and their families.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Radiologic screening and surveillance in hereditary cancers.European journal of radiology open · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

39 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.

Stuart A TaylorCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: stuart.taylor@ucl.ac.uk.
Sue MallettInstitute of Applied Health Research, NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Simon BallBarking, Havering, and Redbridge NHS Trust, Romford, UK.
Sandy BeareCancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Gauraang BhatnagarFrimley Park Hospital, Frimley, UK.
Angshu BhowmikDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK.
Peter BoavidaDepartment of Radiology, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK.
John BridgewaterUCL Cancer Institute, London, UK.
Caroline S ClarkeResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Marian DugganCancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Steve EllisDepartment of Radiology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Robert Glynne-JonesMount Vernon Centre for Cancer Treatment, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK.
Vicky GohDepartment of Cancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, King's Health Partners, London, UK.
Ashley M GrovesInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Ayshea HameeduddinDepartment of Radiology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Sam M JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospitals, UK.
Edward W JohnstonCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Dow-Mu KohDepartment of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, Surrey, UK.
Sara LockDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Whittington Hospital, London, UK.
Anne MilesDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK.
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Alison MortonCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Neal NavaniLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospitals, UK.
Alfred OliverCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Terry O'ShaughnessyDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Anwar R PadhaniPaul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.
David PrezziDepartment of Cancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, King's Health Partners, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Shonit PunwaniCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Laura QuinnInstitute of Applied Health Research, NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Hameed RafieeNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Krystyna ReczkoCancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Andrea G RockallDepartment of Imaging, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Department of Cancer and Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Peter RussellDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK.
Harbir S SidhuCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Nicola StricklandDepartment of Imaging, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Kathryn TarverBarking, Havering, and Redbridge NHS Trust, Romford, UK.
Jonathan TeagueCancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Steve HalliganCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Streamline investigators
University College London · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBCancer Research UK · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBBarking, Havering And Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBBirkbeck, University of London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBHomerton University Hospital · GBMount Vernon Hospital · GBFrimley Park Hospital · GBHammersmith Hospital · GBImperial College London · GBKings Health Partners · GBMount Vernon Cancer Centre · GBNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBPrincess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust · GBRoyal London Hospital · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16463Department of Health 10/68/01Department of Health EME/13/122/01Department of Health ICA-CDRF-2017-03-053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multi-modality staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in NSCLC.

methodsThe Streamline L trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed NSCLC that was potentially radically treatable on diagnostic chest CT (defined as stage IIIb or less). Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or histologies other than NSCLC. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs) and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN50436483, and is complete.

findingsBetween Feb 26, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016, 976 patients were screened for eligibility. 353 patients were recruited, 187 of whom completed the trial; 52 (28%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 50% (95% CI 37-63) for WB-MRI and 54% (41-67) for standard pathways, a difference of 4% (-7 to 15, p=0·73). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (93% [88-96]) and standard pathways (95% [91-98], p=0·45). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 98% for WB-MRI and 99% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (13 days [12-14]) than for the standard pathway (19 days [17-21]); a 6-day (4-8) difference. The number of tests required was similar WB-MRI (one [1-1]) and standard pathways (one [1-2]). Mean per-patient costs were £317 (273-361) for WBI-MRI and £620 (574-666) for standard pathways.

interpretationWB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs.

fundingUK National Institute for Health Research.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungEnglandFemaleHumansLungLung NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedWhole Body Imaging

Identifiers

PMID31080129
PMCPMC6529610
OpenAlexW2944324140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.