Who wants cancer screening with PET?. A contingent valuation survey in Japan

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 190-194

  Yasunaga, Hideo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Contingent valuation method; PET; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CANCER DETECTIONS; CANCER MORTALITIES; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER-ASSISTED; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE-POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHIES; GENERAL PUBLICS; PET; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS; REDUCING EFFECTS; SIGNIFICANT FACTORS; WEIBULL; WHOLE BODIES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

DIAGNOSTIC RADIOGRAPHY; ECONOMICS; POSITRON ANNIHILATION SPECTROSCOPY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SURVEYS;

POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTINGENT VALUATION; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FAMILIAL CANCER; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INCOME; MALE; MORTALITY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JAPAN; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 63649137896     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.020     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Juweid M.E., and Cheson B.D. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 354 (2006) 496-507
2. Van Tinteren H., Hoekstra O.S., Smit E.F., 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 359 (2002) 1388-1393
3. Ide M., and Suzuki Y. Is whole-body FDG-PET valuable for health screening? For. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 32 (2005) 339-341
4. Weckesser M., and Schober O. Is whole-body FDG-PET valuable for health screening? Against. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 32 (2005) 342-343
5. Yasuda S., and Ide M. PET and cancer screening. Ann Nucl Med 19 (2005) 167-177
6. Ide M. Cancer screening with FDG-PET. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 50 (2006) 23-27
7. Berger M., Gould M.K., and Barnett P.G. The cost of positron emission tomography in six United States Veterans Affairs hospitals and two academic medical centers. AJR 181 (2003) 359-365
8. Yap K.K., Yap K.S., Byrne A.J., et al. Positron emission tomography with selected mediastinoscopy compared to routine mediastinoscopy offers cost and clinical outcome benefits for pre-operative staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32 (2005) 1033-1040
9. Verboom P., van Tinteren H., Hoekstra O.S., et al. Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in staging non-small cell lung cancer: the PLUS study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30 (2003) 1444-1449
10. 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 27 (2000) 1598-1609
11. Mitsutake N., Fujii R., Oku S., Furui Y., and Yasunaga H. Business administration of PET facilities: a nationwide survey of prices for PET screening and a cost analysis of three facilities. Kaku Igaku Jpn J Nucl Med 44 (2007) 125-129 [in Japanese]
12. Smith R.D. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ 12 (2003) 609-628
13. Olsen J.A., and Smith R.D. Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care. Health Econ 10 (2001) 39-52
14. Klose T. The contingent evaluation method in health care. Health Policy 47 (1999) 97-123
15. Papatheofanis F.J. The willingness to pay for positron emission tomography (PET): evaluation of suspected lung cancer using contingent valuation. Q J Nucl Med 44 (2000) 191-196
16. Yasunaga H., Ide H., Imamura T., and Ohe K. Women's anxieties caused by false positives in mammography screening: a contingent valuation survey. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101 (2007) 59-64
17. Phelps C.E. Health economics. 3rd ed. (2003), Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA p. 5-8