Assessing short-term effects and costs at an early stage of innovation: The use of positron emission tomography on radiotherapy treatment decision making

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 212-220

  Remonnay, Raphaël ^a   Morelle, Magali ^a   Pommier, Pascal ^b   Giammarile, Francesco ^c   Carrère, Marie Odile ^d  

^a CENTRE LÉON BÉRARD   (France)

^b Regional Cancer Center Léon Bérard

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE LYON   (France)

^d GATE Lyon Saint Etienne   (France)

Author keywords

Cost evaluation; Hodgkin's disease; Non small cell lung cancer; PET; Radiotherapy

Indexed keywords

COST EVALUATION; HODGKIN'S DISEASE; NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG CANCER;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DECISION MAKING; HOSPITALS; IMAGING TECHNIQUES; RADIOTHERAPY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOTHERAPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 42149193171     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026646230808029X     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Alzahouri K, Lejeune C, Woronoff-Lemsi MC, Arveux P, Guillemin F. Cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies introducing FDG-PET into the mediastinal staging of non-small-cell lung cancer from the French healthcare system perspective. Clin Radiol. 2005;60:479-492.
2. Bradbury I, Bonell E, Boynton J, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. Health Technology Report 2. Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland; 2002.
3. Bradbury I, Facey K, Laking G, Sharp P. Investing in new technology: The PET experience. Br J Cancer. 2002;89:224-227.
4. Chuck A, Jacobs P, Logus JW, et al. Marginal cost of operating a positron emission tomography centre in a regulatory environment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:442-451.
5. Collège des Economistes dela Santé (French Health Economics Association). French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies. 2004. Available at:www.ces-asso.org.
6. Collège des Economistes de la Santé. Guide méthodologique pour l'évaluation économique des stratégies de santé. Paris: CES; 2003.
7. Drummond M, Sculpher MJ, Torrance G, O'Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
8. Fédération nationale des centres de lutte contre le cancer, Société française de biophysique et médecine nucléaire, La Ligue, Fédération hospitalière de France, Fédération française de cancérologie. Standards, Options et Recommandations pour l'utilisation de la tomographie par émission de positons au [18F]-FDG (PET-FDG) en cancé rologie. Paris: FNCLCC; 2003.
9. Gambhir SS, Hoh CK, Phelps ME, Madar I, Maddahi J. Decision trees sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small cell lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 1996;7:1428-1436.
10. Gregoire V, Haustermans K, Geets X, Roels S, Lonneux M. PET-based treatment planning in radiotherapy: A new standard? J Nucl Med. 2007;48(Suppl 1):68s-77s.
11. Gugiatti A, Grimaldi A, Rossetti C, et al. Economic analyses on the use of positron emission tomography for the work-up of solitary pulmonary nodules and for staging patients with non-small-cell-lung-cancer in Italy. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;48:49-61.
12. IARC. 2006, Globocan database. Available at: http://wwwdep.iarc. fr/.
13. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496-507.
14. Kelly RF, Tran T, Holmstrom A, Murar J, Segurola RJ Jr. Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of [18F]-2-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography scan in potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Chest. 2004;125:1413-1423.
15. Klose T, Leidl R, Buchmann I, Brambs HJ, Reske SN. Primary staging of lymphomas: Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET versus computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:1457-1464.
16. Kosuda S, Ichihara K, Watanabe M, Kobayashi H, Kusano S. Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of whole-body FDG PET in the management of patients with non small-cell-lung carcinoma in Japan. Ann Nucl Med. 2002;19:263-271.
17. Kosuda S, Ichilara K, Watanabe M, Kobayashi H, Kusano S. Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of chest 2-fluoro-2-D -[18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with pulmonary nodules (non small cell lung carcinoma) in Japan. Chest. 2000;178:346-353.
18. Ministère de la Santé et de la Protection sociale. Arr̂eté du 28 mai 2004 fixant l'indice de besoins afférent aux appareils de diagnostic utilisant l'émission de radioé léments artificiels (caméra à scintillation munie d'un détecteur d'émission de positons en coïncidence, tomographe à émission de positons, caméra à positons). Journal Officiel. 2004;144: 11318.
19. Nguyen VH, Peloquin S, Lacasse Y. Cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography for the management of potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer in Quebec. Can Respir J. 2005;12:19-25.
20. 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.
21. Sloka JS, Hollett PD, Mathews M. Cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography for non-small cell lung carcinoma in Canada. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10:MT73-MT80.
22. 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.
23. Verboom P, van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in staging non-small cell lung cancer: The PLUS study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;11:1444-1449.
24. Von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Dummer R, Weder W. Cost-effectiveness of whole-body PET imaging in non-small cell lung cancer and malignant melanoma. Acad Radiol. 1998;(Suppl 2):S300-S302.