Introduction
Esophageal cancer affects over 450,000 people worldwide each year, ranking eighth
among cancer incidence. The incidence of primary esophageal cancer continues to increase.[1] The role and choice of imaging in the postoperative period remains unclear. The
primary imaging modalities for assessment of anastomotic integrity are fluoroscopic
water-soluble contrast swallow (FWSCS), and more recently computed tomography water-soluble
contrast swallow (CTWSCS). It remains uncertain whether FWSCS or CTWSCS represents
a superior test. Both tests have been well described separately, with similar sensitivities
and specificities and without clear superiority of either modality. Several studies
have directly compared diagnostic test accuracy, however, to date no synthesis of
available randomized controlled trials is available to guide decision-making. The
aim of this study was a meta-analysis of available comparative diagnostic test accuracy
studies, comparing CT and fluoroscopic swallow in the assessment of post-esophagectomy
anastomotic leak.
Materials and Methods
A systematic review was performed to investigate the relative diagnostic test accuracies
of both commonly performed post-esophagectomy imaging modalities. Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) was selected as a structured
approach to the systematic meta-analysis of randomized trials.[2] The population was adult patients following esophagectomy for primary esophageal
malignancy. The intervention was CTWSCS compared with conventional FWSCS. The outcomes
of interest were sensitivity and specificity for esophageal anastomotic leak. Inclusion
criteria were prospective diagnostic test accuracy studies comparing both FWSCS with
CTWSCS. Studies where the two examinations were performed in each patient were included.
Studies where only one examination was performed were excluded. Studies of Centre
for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) evidence level 4 or lower (such as case reports)
were excluded.[3] Studies where a published full text English-language translation was not available
were excluded. Nonpublished studies were excluded, and authors were not contacted
for nonpublished information. Data from all studies were extracted from each publication,
and pooled for analysis, which was performed using Prism 7 (version 7.0; GraphPad
Software, La Jolla, CA, USA).
Results
Search results
MEDLINE PubMed search was performed using the MESH terms esophagectomy, fluoroscopy
CT, and anastomotic leak at study initiation in May 2015, and repeated prior to analysis
in 2016. Of 10,961 publications addressing esophagectomy, two studies met all search
terms and adhered to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.[4],[5] Reverse citation tracking and alternate engines using identical search terms (Google
Scholar, TRIP, Cochrane Database, and ClinicalTrilas.gov) revealed one further study
adhering to the inclusion and exclusion criteria [Figure 1].[6]
Figure 1: Search Strategy
Study technique
In all studies, both tests were performed on each patient at day 7, with scan technique
as described [Table 1]. All studies reported binary results for the presence of leakage on FWSCS. With
regard to CTWSCS, one study did not permit identification of cases where mediastinal
gas alone was identified, and while included in the overall analysis, was excluded
from certain subgroup analyses.[4] The remaining studies allowed for further categorization of CTWSCS as normal, mediastinal
gas without contrast leakage, or frank contrast leakage. All readers were blinded.
Each study was analyzed separately, and pooled data were analyzed. Pooled data assessed
the presence or absence of leak on FWSCS. Pooled data for CT assessed the presence
or absence of leak. Furthermore, the presence and absence of mediastinal gas on CT
was also assessed. This permitted analysis of three CT subgroups describing the commonly
encountered scenarios: (1) Neither mediastinal air or gas was seen [normal study],
(2) Mediastinal gas without leakage of oral contrast [abnormal study], and (3) Anastomotic
leakage of oral contrast.
Table 1
Study technique
|
Study
|
CT water-soluble contrast swallow
|
Fluoroscopic water-soluble contrast swallow
|
|
Postoperative day
|
Position
|
PO contrast
|
IV contrast
|
Postoperative day
|
Position
|
Views
|
PO contrast
|
|
*Some patients were unable to tolerate this additional bolus, number not specified.
**Volume not specified. ***Semi-erect where erect not tolerated. ****If normal, the
patient then drinks boluses of barium (100% weight/volume, Baritop) in four positions:
AP right lateral, left lateral and prone. PO: Peroral, IV: Intravenous, I: Iodine
|
|
Upponi et al. (n=52)
|
6-8
|
Supine
|
Prior to swallow, with additional bolus immediately prior to scan* 50 mL iopamidol
(Niopam) 30 mg I/mL, containing 1500 mg I
|
None
|
6-8
|
30° Caudal tilt
|
2 (Frontal and lateral)****
|
Iopamidol (Niopam) 300 mg I/mL**
|
|
Strauss et al. (n=95)
|
7
|
Supine
|
Immediately prior to scan 50 mL iohexol (Omnipaque) 50 mg I/mL, containing 2500 mg
I
|
25 second delay 80 mL iohexol (Omnipaque) 300 mg I/mL at 2.5 mL/s
|
7
|
Erect
|
2 (frontal and lateral)
|
50-100 mL iohexol (Omnipaque) 300 mg I/mL
|
|
Hogan et al. (n=38
|
7
|
Supine
|
Immediately prior to scan 250 mL diatrizoate (Gastrografin) 7.4 mg I/mL, containing
1850 mg I
|
None
|
7
|
Erect***
|
3 (Frontal and both-sided 45° oblique)
|
Iopamidol (Niopam) 300 mg I/mL**
|
Study results
The eligible studies enrolled 187 patients. 74.3% were males (n = 139) and 25.7% were females (n = 48). Of these 187 patients, two patients dropped out (gender not specified), with
185 patients undergoing both FWSCS and CTWSCS following esophagectomy for malignancy.
Mean patient age was 64.5 years (range 28–85). 15.5% (n = 20) of esophagectomies were cervical anastomoses and 84.5% (n = 129) were mediastinal anastomoses. The level of anastomoses was not specified
in the remaining 36 patients. Anastomotic leakage rate was 13.5% (25 of 185). Individual
study data and forest plots are described for all studies and pooled data [Figure 2]. Summary statistics were calculated [Table 2].
Figure 2: Plot of individual study results. “Insufficient individualised data provided for
Hogan et al to separate mediastinal gas from contrast leakage groups. TP: True Positive, FP:
False Positive, FN: False Negative, TN: True Negative, FWSCS: Fluoroscopic Water Soluble
Contrast Swallow, CTWSCS: CT Water Soluble Contrast Swallow
Table 2
Comparative results of diagnostic test accuracy
|
Anastomotic leakage
|
Fluoroscopic water-soluble swallow
|
CT water-soluble swallow
|
|
Leakage of oral contrast or mediastinal gas
|
Oral contrast leakage only
|
Mediastinal gas without leakage of oral contrast
|
|
Sensitivity (95% CI)
|
64% (43-82%)
|
84% (65-94%)
|
56% (37-73%)
|
70% (40-89%)
|
|
Specificity (95% CI)
|
98% (95-100%)
|
85% (79-90%)
|
98% (96-100%)
|
82% (74-87%)
|
|
Odds ratio (95% CI)
|
93 (23-320.6)
|
29.8 (9.9-83.5)
|
66.6 (16.7-229.6)
|
10.3 (2.5-37.8)
|
|
Likelihood ratio
|
34.1
|
5.6
|
29.9
|
3.8
|
|
Positive predictive value (95% CI)
|
84% (62-94%)
|
47% (33-61%)
|
82% (59-94%)
|
223% (11-40%)
|
|
Negative predictive value (95% CI)
|
95% (90-97%)
|
97% (93-99%)
|
93% (89-96%)
|
97% (92-99%)
|
When the presence of either mediastinal air or contrast leakage on CTWSCS was considered
positive for leakage, the sensitivity of CTWSCS (84%) was 20% higher than FWSCS (64%);
however, this failed to reach significance (one-tailed McNemar test, P = 0.125). The specificity of FWSCS (98%) was 13% higher than that of CTWSCS (85%),
which was significant (P = 0.000025).
Leakage of oral contrast on CTWSCS, irrespective of mediastinal gas, demonstrated
98% specificity for anastomotic leakage, not significantly different from that of
FWSCS at 98% (P = 0.125). Using only the leakage of oral contrast for diagnosis reduced the sensitivity
of CTWSCS from 84% to 56%; this was also not significantly different from that of
FWSCS (P = 0.250).
When mediastinal gas was seen on CTWSCS without leakage of oral contrast, sensitivity
and specificity for the detection of anastomotic leak were 70 and 82%, respectively.
Among the 31 patients with mediastinal gas but no leakage of oral contrast on CTWSCS,
there were 7 anastomotic leaks, of which 4 were evident on FWSCS. Thus among patients
with mediastinal gas but no contrast leak, the incidence of anastomotic leak was 22.6%,
greater than the overall incidence of 13.5%. Where gas is seen on CTWSCS, additional
performance of a FWSCS revealed 57.1% of anastomotic leaks.
Risk of bias
A structured assessment of bias was performed in accordance with the QUADAS2 (Quality
Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines.[7] All studies stated consecutive prospective enrolment, and diagnostic tests were
performed within one day of each other, at 7 days from surgery. Each patient underwent
both tests, thus acting as their own control. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were
homogenous. In each case, the diagnostic imaging was interpreted by a blinded radiologist,
without knowledge of clinical status or of biochemical, endoscopic or alternative
imaging results. Regardless of radiologist blinding to patients status, several secondary
signs of clinical status cannot be blinded: patient’s posture, the presence of additional
hardware (such as central lines, tubes, and drainage catheters), atelectasis, or adjacent
lung findings. These are all hallmarks of the unwell patient seen on both FWSCS and
CTWSCS. As a result, the authors attribute a low-to-medium risk of bias in this regard.
While further bias on behalf of the surgeon may have been present, it was considered
unlikely to significantly influence the results of this diagnostic test accuracy study.
The reference standard in all studies was clinical exclusion of leak following resumption
of oral feeding and successful patient discharge. In certain cases endoscopy and thoracotomy
was used. This introduces a risk of bias as and potentially present subtle anastomotic
leaks could have been missed on imaging. These would be, by definition, not clinically
significant however. Several patients in all studies were initially enrolled, but
due to clinical deterioration some required accelerated imaging or thoracotomy (3.6%,
n = 7), hence these were excluded. As the studies were undertaken to compare the accuracy
of routine post-esophagectomy imaging in ruling out leakage, these patients are not
relevant to the clinical question. Given the small numbers, and doubtful relationship
to the study question, the risk of bias is considered low.
Patient cohort, underlying pathology, and operative outcomes may vary between institutions.
All studies were single-center large tertiary referral high-volume centers in Western
European or American patients, and true leakage rates were narrowly distributed. While
such variations may introduce heterogeneity, the risk of bias was felt to be low.
Technical parameters for diagnostic examinations varied; the oral contrast regimes,
the use of intravenous contrast at CT, and the number of projections viewed at fluoroscopy
varied [Table 1]. Only one study described CT acquisition kV and mA.[5] Despite this, overall techniques remain broadly aligned between studies, with a
resulting low risk of bias.
Discussion
Following esophagectomy for malignancy, the presence of contrast leakage on routine
(day 7) postoperative FWSCS and CTWSCS is 98% specific for anastomotic leakage in
both tests. Contrast leakage lacks sensitivity however, 64% on FWSCS and 56% on CTWSCS.
CT allows for the assessment of mediastinal gas, which is not typically appreciable
on fluoroscopy. The presence of mediastinal gas alone on CTWSCS, even in the absence
of leakage of contrast, is 70% sensitive and 82% specific. Combining assessment for
contrast leakage or mediastinal gas allows for a sensitivity of 84% and a specificity
of 85%.
Among the 31 patients with mediastinal gas but no leakage of contrast on CTWSCS, there
were 7 anastomotic leaks, of which 4 were evident on FWSCS. Thus among patients with
mediastinal gas, the incidence of anastomotic leak was 22.6%, greater than the baseline
incidence of 13.5%. If gas is seen on CTWSCS, subsequent performance of a FWSCS reveals
57.1% (4/7) of these occult leaks.
The role of routine imaging in the postoperative period is as a rule-out test, to
exclude an anastomotic leak where absent prior to commencement of feeding, and to
facilitate early intervention when present. Where CTWSCS was normal, without either
mediastinal gas or leakage, only 2.7% (3/109) of patients demonstrated subsequent
anastomotic leak. FWSCS was also negative in these three cases. The routine performance
of FWSCS in addition to negative CTWSCS does not appear to add value.
Encompassing the above results, an algorithm for the radiological screening of anastomotic
leakage is proposed [Figure 3]. Following this algorithm permitted confident diagnosis in 79% of cases where CTWSCS
showed either a clear contrast leak, or no mediastinal air, with only three false
positives and no false negatives. In the remaining 21% of patients, representing those
with mediastinal gas but no leakage of contrast on either CTWSCS or FWSCS, there is
an 11.1% leak rate. In this group, the possibility of anastomotic leakage must remain
a consideration, requiring a persisting high degree of clinical suspicion, and expectant
management with biochemical, endoscopic or clinical correlation may be an appropriate
strategy.
Figure 3: Suggested algorithm for the exclusion of anastomotic leakage. [Patients from Strauss
et al (n =95) and Upponi et al (n =52) included, totalling 147 patients. Reported data from Hogan et al (n =38) did not permit individual case assessment]
Post-esophagectomy imaging is primarily performed to identify anastomotic leaks, in
order to identify those patients who may require more intensive management or additional
intervention. As such, the higher sensitivity of CTWSCS to leakage and its resulting
higher negative predictive value suggest it is a more useful test in permitting the
radiologist to exclude an anastomotic leak. A caveat remains that even with the more
sensitive CTWSCS, 17.6% of anastomotic leaks were radiologically occult, demonstrating
neither contrast leakage nor mediastinal gas.
False positive detection of contrast leakage was uncommon, reflecting the relatively
specific appearance of iodinated contrast leakage into the mediastinum. Upponi et al. reported one case of hyperdense perianastamotic hematoma mimicking iodinated contrast,
however, this was subsequently recognized and correctly diagnosed. Mediastinal gas
alone lacks specificity, while perianastamotic gas in the late preoperative period
is suggestive of leakage, the rate of gas resorption from surgery varies and even
at one postoperative week, a cohort of patients with an intact anastomosis will still
have mediastinal air, which is therefore presumed operative. Clearly the presence
of an associated leakage of contrast strongly favors a true positive result. False
negative results occurred in patients with no radiological leakage, but a leak became
clinically apparent or was identified on alternate modalities, including endoscopy
and thoracotomy. While the exact cause for missed leakage is uncertain, potential
causes include diagnostic error, a small leak where the volume of oral contrast may
be undetectable on imaging, a transient leak which may remain closed for a small bolus
of fluid but open for a larger/solid bolus, or delayed anastomotic breakdown occurring
after imaging in the postoperative course.
Prior studies have described a greater cervical leakage rate in cervical anastomoses
as compared with mediastinal (intrathoracic) anastomoses (12.3 versus 9.3%).[8] While all three analyzed studies reported the type of anastomosis, individual results
by anastomosis type were not presented, preventing subgroup analysis.
Recent separate studies by Cools-Lartigue et al.[9] and Tirnaksiz et al.[10] refuted the role for post-esophagectomy fluoroscopic imaging; however, this conclusion
is based on poorer sensitivities then demonstrated in the included studies (40.4 and
45.5%, respectively). Given the higher pooled sensitivity described above with the
use of CTWSCS (84%), the associated higher negative predictive value may justify the
use of this screening test, given the reasonably common occurrence of post-esophagectomy
anastomotic leakage (n = 25, 16%).
The use of CTWSCS is associated with a higher rate of false positives (15%), predominantly
gas-related. It is important that the reporting radiologist is aware of this high
rate of false positives and communicates this along with any abnormal report. In contemporary
practice, these findings are often followed with endoscopy or delayed repeat imaging
as dictated by the condition of the patient, particularly in the absence of clinical
and biochemical signs of thoracomediastinal sepsis. This lower specificity of CT is
likely due to a combination of factors. Certain patients will demonstrate residual
air at 7 days without an associated true leakage, which may be misinterpreted as a
possible leak. Additionally, one case of hyperdense extramural hematoma was initially
interpreted as possible contrast leakage on CTWSCS, although it was recognized at
the time.[5] This is rarely a diagnostic dilemma, due to typically differing densities of hematoma
and contrast. In cases of doubt, where there is concern of a small leakage of contrast
mixing in a perianastamotic fluid collection, or where contrast is too dilute approaching
hematoma density, a noncontrast phase of CT or FWSCS can be considered for confirmation.
Further factors may influence choice of imaging modality [Table 3]. Many institutions will routinely perform CT scans of the thorax and upper abdomen
in patients where a leak has been demonstrated or is strongly suspected, as this provides
additional information on the presence of drainable collections, or fistulation into
the adjacent organs. With the increasing use of CT-guided drainage, covered stent
insertion and advanced endoscopic therapy, there is a greater scope for conservative
management, and this additional CT-provided information is valuable in informing any
such decisions. Whilst this is not reflected in the presented diagnostic test accuracy
data, it is an advantage of CT.
Table 3
Nondiagnostic differences between tests
|
Fluoroscopic water-soluble contrast swallow
|
CT water-soluble contrast swallow
|
|
Cost
|
$629
|
$1,912
|
|
Effective radiation dose
|
2 mSv
|
4-6 mSv
|
|
Patient preference
|
14%
|
70%
|
|
Additional anatomical and pathological information
|
+
|
+++
|
Upponi et al.[5] demonstrated a patient preference for CTWSCS in 70% of patients, with only 14% of
patients preferring FWSCS, and 16% expressing no preference. Similarly, Strauss et al.[6] reported greater patient tolerability and acceptability in the CTWSCS. The reason
for this preference was not further investigated, possible causes may include the
ability of CT to be performed supine, the smaller volumes of contrast required, and
the shorter duration of a CT scan. The radiation dose is higher with CTWSCS (4–6 mSv)
than with FWSCS (2 mSv), which is a further consideration particularly in younger
patients, although the total doses are within the same order of magnitude.[11],[12] Furthermore, CT of the thorax and upper abdomen costs an average of $1,912 in the
US, while upper abdominal contrast study cost is $629.[13] Clearly, this is subject to wide variation across sites, however, this increased
cost of CT is a further consideration for healthcare providers and patients.
The primary limitation of this study is the number of enrolled patients across all
studies; 185 patients underwent both tests contemporaneously with a reference standard.
Analysis of the combined results reached significance in several measures (including
specificity); importantly, however, trends in sensitivity failed to reach significance.
Separating a lack of study-power from and a lack of significance is important, and
the study authors note that current meta-analysis falls short of statistical significance
in several key areas.
Among post-esophagectomy patients, the presence of contrast leakage on routine FWSCS
and CTWSS is highly specific for leakage (both 98%). The sensitivity of FWSCS (64%)
renders it suboptimal as a screening test. The sensitivity of CTWSCS (84%), while
higher than FWSCS, failed to reach significance (P = 0.125), which may reflect low patient numbers. The high negative predictive value
of CTWSCS (97%) suggests that where a test is required post-esophagectomy to exclude
anastomotic leak, the trend toward greater sensitivity favors this is test.
