PET and diagnostic technology evaluation in a global clinical process: DGN's point of view;Vorbehalte der DGN zur nutzenbewertung der PET durch das IQWiG

NuklearMedizin

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 6-12

  Kotzerke, J ^a   Dietlein, M ^b   Grunwald F ^c   Bockisch, A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CARL GUSTAV CARUS   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL FRANKFURT   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Benefit; Lymphoma; Oncology; PET; Reimbursement

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE; TRACER;

ALGORITHM; CHEMOTHERAPY; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HALF LIFE TIME; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; MONITORING; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION PROTECTION; REVIEW; SURVIVAL; THERAPY EFFECT;

GERMANY; HALF-LIFE; HUMANS; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOISOTOPES; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 76749138581     PISSN: 00295566     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3413/nukmed-0319     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 88-94.
2. Strahlenschutzkommission. Orientierungshilfe für bildgebende Verfahren. Empfehlungen der Strahlenschutzkommission, verabschiedet in der 231. Sitzung der Strahlenschutzkommission am 9./10.12.2008. www.ssk.de.
3. Hillner BE, Liu D, Coleman RE et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): design and analysis plan. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 1901-1908.
4. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2155-2161.
5. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF et al. Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/ CT on intended management: findings of the national oncologic PET registry. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1928-1935.
6. Dietlein M, Schicha H. Reimbursement of the PET in oncology in Europe: a questionnaire based survey. Nuklearmedizin 2003; 42: 80-85.
7. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Coomarasamy A et al. Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11: iii, ix-51.
8. Reitsma JB, Rutjes AW, Khan KS et al. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 797-806.
9. Hutchings M, Barrington SF. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2009; 50 (Suppl 1): 21S-30S.
10. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM et al. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009; 301: 831-841.
11. Valk PE. Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? Against. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31: 132-135.
12. Van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Boers M. Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? For. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31: 129-131.
13. Dubben HH. Trials of prostate-cancer screening are not worthwhile. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 294-298.
14. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. Br Med J 2007; 334: 349-351.
15. 18F)-FDG-PET in clinical stage I/II non-seminomatous germ cell tumours: results of the German multicentre trial. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 1619-1623.
16. 18F) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in nonseminomatous germ cell tumors after chemotherapy: the German multicenter positron emission tomography study group. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5930-5935.
17. Kobe C, Dietlein M, Franklin J et al. Positron emission tomography has a high negative predictive value for progression or early relapse for patients with residual disease after first-line chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2008; 112: 3989-3994.
18. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 571-578.
19. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2006; 107: 52-59.
20. Diehl V, Franklin J, Pfreundschuh M et al. Standard and increased-dose BEACOPP chemotherapy compared with COPP-ABVD for advanced Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2386-2395.
21. Markova J, Kobe C, Skopalova M et al. FDG-PET for assessment of early treatment response after four cycles of chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma has a high negative predictive value. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1270-1274.
22. Picardi M, De Renzo A, Pane F et al. Randomized comparison of consolidation radiation versus observation in bulky Hodgkin's lymphoma with postchemotherapy negative positron emission tomography scans. Leuk Lymphoma 2007; 48: 1721-1727.
23. Naumann R, Beuthien-Baumann B, Reiss A et al. Substantial impact of FDG PET imaging on the therapy decision in patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. Br J Cancer 2004; 90: 620-625.
24. Rigacci L, Vitolo U, Nassi L et al. Positron emission tomography in the staging of patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. A prospective multicentric study by the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi. Ann Hematol 2007; 86: 897-903.
25. Eich HT, Staar S, Gossmann A et al. Centralized radiation oncologic review of cross-sectional imaging of Hodgkin's disease leads to significant changes in required involved field-results of a quality assurance program of the German Hodgkin Study Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58: 1121-1127.
26. Reske SN, Bares R, Büll U et al. Clinical value of positron emission tomography (PET) in oncologic questions: results of an interdisciplinary consensus conference. Schirmherrschaft der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Nuklearmedizin. Nuklearmedizin 1996; 35: 42-52.
27. rd German Interdisciplinary Consensus Conference, "Onko-PET III", 21 July and 19 September 2000. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28: 1707-1723.
28. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 439-445.
29. Kuhne H. Optimierung des Zulassungs- und Erstattungsverfahrens für medizintechnische Produkte. In: Schmitz-Rode T (ed). Runder Tisch Medizintechnik - Wege zur beschleunigten Zulassung und Erstattung innovativer Medizinprodukte. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009: 37-38.
30. Herok C. Medizintechnik als innovationspolitische Herausforderung. In: Schmitz-Rode T (ed). Runder Tisch Medizintechnik - Wege zur beschleunigten Zulassung und Erstattung innovativer Medizinprodukte. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009: 33-35.
31. Zylka-Menhorn V. Für Chirurgen "eine Dimension der ärztlichen Humanität". Dtsch Ärzteblatt 2009; 106: A-970 / B-829 / C-804.
32. Pocock SJ, Smeeth L. Insulin glargine and malignancy: an unwarranted alarm. Lancet 2009; 374: 511-513.
33. Iglehart JK. The new era of medical imaging - progress and pitfalls. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2822-2828.
34. What price health? Nature 2009; 458: 7.
35. Hartzband P, Groopman J. Money and the changing culture of medicine. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 101-103.
36. Bamberg M, Diehl V, Herrmann T et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology: a part of medical therapeutic expertise. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2006; 131: 512-515.
37. Graham MM. Cost-effectiveness of medical imaging. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 744-745.
38. Krause BJ, Beyer T, Bockisch A et al. FDG-PET/CT in oncology. German Guideline. Nuklearmedizin 2007; 46: 291-301.