The cost of positron emission tomography in six United States Veterans Affairs hospitals and two academic medical centers

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 181, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 359-365

  Berger, Magdalena ^a,b   Gould, Michael K ^a,c   Barnett, Paul G ^a,b,c  

^a VA PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ARTICLE; COST; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYCLOTRON; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

EID: 0041413261     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.2.1810359     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Conti PS, Keppler JS, Halls JM. Positron emission tomography: a financial and operational analysis. AJR 1994;162:1279-1286
2. Valk PE, Pounds TR, Tesar RD, Hopkins DM, Haseman MK. Cost-effectiveness of PET imaging in clinical oncology. Nucl Med Biol 1996;23:737-743
3. Laking G, Price P. 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and the staging of early lung cancer. Thorax 2001;56[suppl 2]: ii38-ii44
4. Cook GJ. The clinical use of PET: where are we now? Br J Radiol 2001;74:399-401
5. Wahl R. Clinical oncology update: the emerging role of positron emission tomography. 2. In: De-vita V, Hellman S, Rosenberg S, eds. Cancer principles and practice of oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997:3-24
6. Cook G, Maisey M. The current status of clinical PET imaging. Clin Radiol 1996;51:603-613
7. Sarinas PS, Chitkara RK. PET and SPECT in the management of lung cancer. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2002;8:257-264
8. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/ coverage/8b3.asp. Accessed July 25, 2002
9. Dewan N, Reeb S, Gupta N, Gobar L, Scott W. PET-FDG imaging and transthoracic needle lung aspiration biopsy in evaluation of pulmonary lesions: a comparative risk-benefit analysis. Chest 1995;108:441-446
10. Gould M, Maclean C, Kuschner W, Rydzak C, Owens D. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2001;285:914-924
11. Sarinas P, Chitkara R, Buadu E, Gould M, Kuschner W, Segall G. Usefulness of positron emission tomography imaging in the management of lung cancer. Curr Opin Pulm Med 1999;5:201-207
12. Guhlmann A, Storck M, Kotzerke J, Moog F, Sunder-Plassmann L, Reske SN. Lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: evaluation by [18F]FDG positron emission tomography (PET). Thorax 1997;52:438-441
13. Kalff V, Hicks R, MacManus M, et al. Clinical impact of (18)F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with non-small-cell lung lancer: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:111-118
14. McCain T, Dunagan D, Chin R, Oaks T, Harkness B, Haponik E. The usefulness of positron emission tomography in evaluating patients for pulmonary malignancies. Chest 2000;118:1610-1615
15. Pieterman R, van Putten J, Meuzelaar J, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med 2000;343:254-261
16. Kosuda S, Ichihara K, Watanabe M, Kobayashi H, Kusano S. Decision-tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of chest 2-fluoro-2-D-[(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with pulmonary nodules (non-small cell lung carcinoma) in Japan. Chest 2000;117:346-353
17. Dietlein M, Weber K, Gandjour A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: priority for a PET-based strategy after nodal-negative CT results. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:1598-1609
18. Dietlein M, Weber K, Gandjour A. et al. Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of solitary pulmonary nodules: a decision analysis based on cost reimbursement in Germany. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:1441-1456
19. ECRI Health Technology Assessment Information Service. Technology assessment executive briefing: positron emission tomography (PET) for the diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer. 2. Cost-effecfiveness analysis. In: Executive briefings. Plymouth Meeting, PA: ECRI, June 1998. Report no. 73
20. Gambhir SS, Hoh CK, Phelps ME, Madar I, Maddahi J. Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1996;37:1428-1436
21. Gambhir SS, Shepherd JE, Shah BD, et al. Analytical decision model for the cost-effective management of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2113-2125
22. Scott WJ, Shepherd J, Gambhir SS. Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for staging non-small cell lung cancer: a decision analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:1876-1883
23. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, Verboom P, Boers M. Toward less futile surgery in non-small cell lung cancer? a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography. Control Clin Trials 2001;22:89-98
24. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra O, Smit E, 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;359:1388-1393
25. Evens RG, Siegel BA, Welch MJ, Ter-Pogossian MM. Cost analyses of positron emission tomography for clinical use. AJR 1983;141:1073-1076
26. Keppler J, Conti P. A cost analysis of positron emission tomography. AJR 2001;177:31-40
27. Barnett P, Berger M. Cost of positron emission tomography: method for determining indirect cost. Menlo Park, CA: VA Health Economics Resource Center, 2003. Report 5, pp. 1-7
28. Barnett P, Garber A. The cost of VA sponsored research. Acad Med 1996;71:42-46
29. Hendricks AM, Remler DK, Prashker MJ. More or less? methods to compare VA and non-VA health care costs. Med Care 1999;37[suppl 4]:AS54-AS62
30. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Health of the House of Representatives Committee on Veterans Affairs, 106th Congress, 2nd Sess (2000). (statement of Kenneth J. Clark, chief network officer, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. Available at: www.va.gov/oca/hvac_testimony_health_usa.htm.
31. Schulthess G. Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT-PET system. Eur Radiol 2000;10 [suppl 3]:S377-S380
32. Nuclear medicine facilities. Academy of Molecular Imaging Web site. Available at: www.ami-imaging.org/public/petcenters. Accessed January 16, 2003