18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in restaging of colorectal cancer: Evidence-based recommendations and cost-effectiveness;18F-fluordeoxyglukose-positronenemissionstomographie in der rezidivdiagnostik des kolorektalen karzinoms: Evidenzbasierte empfehlungen und kosten/nutzenabwägungen

NuklearMedizin

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 145-156

  Dietlein, M ^a   Weber, W ^b   Schwaiger, M ^b   Schicha, H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Colorectal cancer; Cost effectiveness; Evidence based medicine; FOG; PET

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ENDOSCOPY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; METASTASIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RATING SCALE; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; SURVIVAL RATE; ARTICLE; COLORECTAL TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; GERMANY; METHODOLOGY; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; RECURRENT DISEASE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCINTISCANNING;

COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; GERMANY; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; RECURRENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED;

EID: 0041357253     PISSN: 00295566     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1625184     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et des Modes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS). Dussault FP, Nguyen V, Rachet F. Positron emission tomography in Quebec: 2002: www.aetmis.gouv.qc.ca.
2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Ioannidis JPA, Lau J. FDG-PET for the diagnosis and management of soft tissue sarcoma: 2002: www.cms.hhs.gov.
3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Systematic review of positron emission tomography for follow-up of treated thyroid cancer. 2002: www.cms.hhs.gov.
4. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). FDG positron emission tomography for evaluating breast cancer - systematic review. 2001: www.cms.hhs.gov.
5. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bevölkerungsbezogener Krebsregister in Deutschland in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Robert-Koch-Institut. Krebs in Deutschland. Häufigkeiten und Trends. 3. Ausgabe. 2002: www.rki.de/KREBS.
6. Arulampalam T, Costa D, Visvikis D et al: The impact of FDG-PET on the management algorithm for recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28: 1758-65.
7. Ausschuss Krankenhaus. Bekanntmachung der Verfahrensregeln zur Bewertung von Untersuchungs- und Behandlungsmethoden im Krankenhaus gemäß § 137 c SGB V. Siegburg, 20.02.2002.
8. Australian Medicare Services Advisory Committee (MSAC), Positron Emission Tomography. MSAC reference 10, part 1 and part 2. 2001: www.msac.gov.au.
9. Biermann M, Schober O. Wie viele Hochrisikopatienten mit differenziertem Schilddrüsenkarzinom braucht ein "Tumorzentrum" pro Jahr? Nuklearmedizin 2002; 41: 61-2.
10. Clancy CM. Ensuring health care quality: an AHCPR perspective. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Clin Ther 1997; 19: 156-471.
11. Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA). Positron emissions tomography (PET) with 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). A literature review of evidence for clinical use in the fields of oncology, cardiology and neurology. 2001: www.va.gov; www sst.dk.
12. , Delbeke D,Vitola JV, Sandler MP et al. Staging recurrent metastatic colorectal carcinoma with PET. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1196-201.
13. Dietlein M, Knapp WH, Lauterbach KW et al. Economic evaluation studies in nuclear medicine: the need for standardization. Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 26: 663-80,
14. Dietlein M, Moka D, Weber K et al. Cost-effectiveness of PET for the management of lung tumours: comparison of economic data. Nuklearmedizin 2001; 40: 122-8.
15. Dietlein M, Schicha H, PET in der nuklearmedizinischen Diagnostik - Kosten/Nutzen-Aspekte. Nuklearmedizin 2002; 41: 202-7.
16. Dietlein M, Schicha H. Vergütung der PET bei onkologischen Fragestellungen in Europa: eine Umfrage. Nuklearmedizin 2003; 42: 80-5.
17. Drummond MF, Jefferson TD. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. Br Med J 1996; 313: 275-83.
18. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Points to consider on the evaluation of diagnostic agents. London 2001: 1-16.
19. Flamen P, Stroobants S, Van Cutsem E et al. Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in recurrent colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 894-901.
20. Flamen P, Hoekstra OS, Homans F et al. Unexplained rising carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer: the utility of positron emission tomography (PET). Eur J Cancer 2001; 37: 862-9.
21. Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Ogunbiyi OA et al. Utility of FDG-PET for investigating unexplained plasma CEA elevation in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1998; 277: 319-23.
22. Fong Y, Saldinger PF, Akhurst T et al. Utility of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography scanning on selection of patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Am J Surg 1999; 178: 282-7.
23. Health Technology Board for Scotland (HTBS). Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. 2001: www.htbs.co.uk.
24. Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE et al: A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1177-89.
25. Kalff V, Hicks RJ, Ware RE et al. The clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET in patients with suspected or confirmed recurrence of colorectal cancer: a prospective study. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 492-9.
26. LaForce FM. US Preventive Services Task Force: Immunizations, Immunoprophylaxis, and Chemoprophylaxis to Prevent Selected Infections. JAMA 1987; 257: 2464-70.
27. Lauterbach KW, Schrappe M. Gesundheitsökonomie, Qualitä tsmanagement und Evidence-based Medicine - Eine systematische Einführung. Stuttgart: Schattauer 2001: 122.
28. Leitlinienkommission des Klinikums der Universität zu Köln. PET bei ausgewählten onkologischen Fragestellungen. www.uni-koeln.de 2002.
29. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999; 282: 1061-6.
30. Lonneux M, Reffad A, Detry R et al. FDGPET improves the staging and selection of patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29: 915-21.
31. Lottes G, Schober O. Costs of F-18-FDG-PET with a satellite concept: update. Nuklearmedizin 2000; 39: 72-6.
32. Meta J, Seltzer M, Schiepers C et al. Impact of 18F-FDG PET on managing patients with colorectal cancer: the referring physician's perspective. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 585-90.
33. Mijnhout GS, Hooft L, van Tulder MW et al. How to perform a comprehensive search for FDG-PET literature. Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27: 91-7.
34. Müller A, Stratmann-Schöne D, Klose T et al. Ökonomische Evaluation der Positronen-Emissions-Tomographie Ein gesundheitsö konomischer HTA-Bericht. Health Technology Assessment. Band 20. Baden-Baden: Normos 2001.
35. Müller A, Stratmann-Schöne D, Klose T et al. Eine Übersicht über die ökonomische Evaluation der Positronen-Emissions-Tomographie. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz 2001; 44: 895-902.
36. Park KC, Schwimmer J, Shepherd JE et al. Decision analysis for the cost-effective management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 2001; 233: 310-9.
37. Ruers TJ, Langenhoff BS, Neeleman N et al. Value of positron emission tomography with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 388-95.
38. Schlag PM, Amthauer H, Stroszczynski C et al. Einfluss der Positronenemissionstomographie auf die chirurgische Therapieplanung beim kolorektalen Rezidivtumor. Chirurg 2001; 72: 995-1002.
39. Simo M, Lomena F, Setoain J et al: FDG-PET improves the management of patients with suspected recurrence of colorectal cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23: 975-82.
40. Staak JO, Dietlein M, Engert A et al. Nuklearmedizinische Aspekte in der Diagnostik und Therapie des Hodgkin Lymphoms. Nuklearmedizin 2003; 42: 19-24.
41. Stahl A, Weber WA, Avril N et al. Effect of N-butylscopolamine on intestinal uptake of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in PET imaging of the abdomen. Nuklearmedizin 2000; 39: 241-9.
42. Staib L, Schirrmeister H, Reske SN, et al. Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in recurrent colorectal cancer a contribution to surgical decision making? Am J Surg 2000; 180: 1-5.
43. Strasberg SM, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA et al. Survival of patients evaluated by FDG-PET before hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a prospective database study. Ann Surg 2001; 233: 293-9.
44. Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995; 15: 369-90.
45. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Arch Surg 1999; 134: 503-11; 511-3.
46. Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998; 122: 675-86.
47. Van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, 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 randomized trial. Lancet 2002; 359: 1388-92.
48. Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Flynn K, Adams E. Technology Assessment Program, Report No. 1. Assessing Diagnostic Technologies. July 1996: www.va.gov.
49. Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Adams E, Flynn K, Alliggd E, Cheslog J. A systematic review update of FDG-PET as a diagnostic test in cancer and Alzheimer's disease. December 1998: www.va.gov.
50. Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43: 759-67; 767-70.
51. Wright JC, Weinstein MC. Gains in life expectancy from medical interventions - standardizing data on outcomes. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 380-6,