Are health technology assessments a reliable tool in the analysis of the clinical value of PET in oncology? Who audits the auditors?

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 637-641

  Højgaard, Liselotte ^a  

^a Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TRACER;

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLON CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EDITORIAL; EPILEPSY; ESOPHAGUS CANCER; GLIOMA; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; LYMPHOMA; MELANOMA; OVARY CANCER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SARCOMA; STOMACH CANCER; TECHNIQUE; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

EID: 0037569576     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-003-1203-4     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. Levi H. George de Hevesy. Copenhagen: Rhodos, 1985.
2. Chievitz O, Bohr N, de Hevesy G. Radioactive indicators in the study of phosphorous metabolism in rats. Nature 1935; 136:754.
3. PET, the fastest growing medical technology ever. www.frost.com
4. WWW.consort-statement.org
5. Clinical evidence, 1st edn. BMJ Publishing Group, 1999.
6. Wulff HR, Gøtzsche P. Rational diagnosis and treatment. Evidence-based clinical decision-making, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000.
7. Smiseth OA, Myhre ES, Aas M, et al. Positron emissions tomography (PET). The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment, SMM, 2000, Oslo. SMM report 8/2000.
8. Redegørelse vedrørende klinisk PET-skanning med FDG - med sœrlig henblik på krœfidiagnostik. Copenhagen: Danish National Board of Health, Center for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, 2001.
9. PET (positron emissions tomografi), Anbefalinger for udbygning af PET og FDG produktion. Copenhagen: Danish National Board of Health, 2002.
10. Ionannidis JPA, Lau J. FDG-PET for the diagnosis and management of soft tissue sarcoma. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, technology assessment, 2002, www.cms.gov/coverage/83b-iii.asp.
11. Positron emission tomography, part 2i. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee, 2001.
12. Bradbury I, Bonell E, Boynton J, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. Health Technology Assessment Report 2, Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland, 2002.
13. Positron emission tomography. Comite d'Evaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques. Paris: HTA, CEDIT, 2001.
14. Rodriguez Garrido M, Asencio del Barrio C, Gomez Martinez MV, et al. PET with 18FDG on clinical oncology. Madrid: Agencia de Evaluacion de Technologias Sanitarias, 2001.
15. Robert G, Milne R. Positron emission tomography: establishing priorities for health technology assessment. Health Technology Assessment, vol 3, no 16. UK HTA, 1999.
16. Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:290-292.
17. Tinteren HV, Hoekstra O, Smit EF, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:1388-1392.