Benefit assessment of PET in malignant lymphomas - The IQWiG point of view;Nutzenbewertung der PET bei malignen lymphomen - Standpunkt des IQWiG

NuklearMedizin

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-5

  Scheibler, F ^a   Raatz, H ^b   Suter, K ^b   Janssen I ^a   Grosselfinger, R ^a   Schroer Gunther M ^a   Kunz, R ^b   Lange, S ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Benefit assessment; Diagnosis; Malignant lymphomas; Methods; PET; Positron emission tomography

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONSENSUS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEASIBILITY STUDY; GERMANY; GOLD STANDARD; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LYMPHOMA; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REVIEW;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GERMANY; HUMANS; LYMPHOMA; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 76749143075     PISSN: 00295566     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3413/nukmed-0320     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Memorandum for the evaluation of diagnostic measures. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1990; 28: 873-879.
2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Br Med J 1995; 311: 485.
3. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging-assisted management of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and suspected coronary disease: a randomized, controlled trial (PARR-2). J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50: 2002-2012.
4. Chee KG, Nguyen DV, Brown M et al. Positron emission tomography and improved survival in patients with lung cancer: the Will Rogers phenomenon revisited. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168: 1541-1549.
5. Dreyling M, Hiddemann W, Trümper L, Pfreundschuh M. Leitlinien: Maligne Lymphome. Empfehlungen der DGHO für die Diagnostik und Therapie hämatologischer und onkologischer Erkrankungen. www.dgho.de/-cmsdata/-file/ file-201.pdf (Zugriff am 17.06.2008).
6. Duehrsen U. Positron Emission Tomography Guided Therapy of Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas (PETAL): NCT00554164. In: ClinicalTrials.gov (Zugriff am 18.02.2009).
7. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology 572 1766. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 480-508.
8. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 88-94.
9. th International Symposium on Hodgkin Lymphoma, Köln, 3-7 November 2007.
10. GHSG. Studien und Protokolle: D18 für fortgeschrittene Stadien. (Zugriff am 17.06.2009) www.klin isches-studienzentrum.de/ghsg/de/trial/264.
11. Golder, W. Positron emission tomography and lymphoma therapy. Onkologie 2001; 24: 496-498.
12. Grosselfinger R, Hommerich J, Kreis J et al. Diagnostic tests for screening: the clinical relevance of positive findings. In: Methods for Evaluating Medical Tests: Symposium 24./25.07.2008; Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Birmingham, UK.
13. 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.
14. Hutchings M, Barrington S. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nuc Med 2009; 50: 21S-30S.
15. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Allgemeine Methoden. Version 3.0. (Zugriff am 14.07.2009) www.iqwig.de/download/IQWiG-Methoden-Version-3-0.pdf.
16. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Positronenemissionstomographie (PET und PET/CT) bei malignen Lymphomen: Abschlussbericht(Zugriff am 17.06.2009 www.iqwig.de/download/D06-01A- Abschlussbericht-PET-bei-malignen-Lymphomen.pdf.
17. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Positronenemissionstomographie (PET und PET/CT) bei malignen Lymphomen: Dokumentation und Würdigung der Stellungnahmen zum Vorbericht. (Zugriff am 17.06.2009) www.iqwig.de/download/D06-01A-DWSV-PET-bei-malignen- Lymphomen.pdf.
18. Kirby AM, George MN. The role of FDG PET in the management of lymphoma: Practical guidelines. Nucl Med Commun 2007; 28: 355-357.
19. 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.#
20. Krause SW, Schmitz S, Engert A. Leitlinien der DGHO: Morbus Hodgkin. (Zugriff am 18.07.2007) www.dgho.de/-cmsdata/-file/file-177.pdf.#
21. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM. Various randomized designs can be used to evaluate medical tests. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 364-373.
22. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 850-855.
23. Maziak DE, Darling GE, Inculet RI et al. Positron emission tomography in staging early lung cancer: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009: 18: 221-228.
24. 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of bone marrow infiltration in staging of lymphoma: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 958-963.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Reske SN, Kotzerke J. FDG-PET for clinical use. Results of the 3rd German Interdisciplinary Consensus Conference, "Onko-PET III", 21 July and 19 September 2000. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28: 1707-1723.
28. 18F-FDG PET: a randomized study. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 1036-1041.
29. Rutjes A, Reitsma JB, Coomarasamy A et al. Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard: A review of methods. 12.2007; www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon1150.pdf.
30. 18FDG-PET in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2008; 98: 875-880.
31. Terasawa T, Lau J, Bardet S et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for interim response assessment of advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 1906-1914.
32. Van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Boers M. Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31: 129-131.
33. 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 randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359: 1388-1393.
34. Viney RC, Boyer MJ, King MT et al. Randomized controlled trial of the role of positron emission tomography in the management of stage I and II nonsmall-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2357-2362.
35. Warwick Medical School Clinical Trials Unit. A multicentre randomised phase III trial comparing Positron Emission Tomography - computed tomography guided watch and wait policy versus planned neck dissection for the management of locally advanced (N2/N3) nodal metastases in patients with head and neck squamous cancer: NCT00720070. 2009. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT00720070?term=NCT00720070&rank=1.
36. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al. The development of QUADAS: A tool for the Quality Assessment of studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 10: 25.