Positron emission tomography 2008 in Germany results of the query and current status;Positronenemissionstomographie 2008 in Deutschland - Ergebnisse der Erhebung und Standoitbestimmung

NuklearMedizin

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 58-64

  Kotzerke, J ^a   Oehme, L ^a   Lindner, O ^b   Hellwig, D ^c   Bartenstein, P ^d   Baum, R P ^d   Burchert, W ^d   Dietlein, M ^d   Haberkorn, U ^d   Kluge, R ^d   Knapp, W H ^d   Kuwert, T ^d   Nitzsche, E ^d   Reske, S N ^d   Reuland, P ^d   Schicha, H ^d   Schober, O ^d   Schwaiger, M ^d   Van Den Hoff, J ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CARL GUSTAV CARUS   (Germany)

^b RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^c SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Numerical data; Positron emission tomography; Utilization review; Utilization statistics

Indexed keywords

FLUORINE 18; GALLIUM 68;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANCER SCINTISCANNING; CARDIOLOGY; CERTIFICATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM CANCER; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LUNG TUMOR; LYMPHOMA; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NEUROLOGY; ONCOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSTATE CANCER; QUESTIONNAIRE; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

EID: 77950848177     PISSN: 00295566     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3413/nukmed-0203     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Adams EJ, Almazan C, Morland B et al. Joint project of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment - Part 2: Managing the diffusion of positron emission tomography with health technology assessment Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22: 149-154.
2. AHIP. Ensuring quality through appropriate use of diagnostic imaging, www.ahip.org/content/default. aspx?docid=24057 2008; Zugriff am 30.11.2009.
3. Bedford M. Maisey MN. Requirements for clinical PET: comparisons within Europe. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:208-221. (Pubitemid 38173696)
4. Bockisch A, Grünwald F, Kotzerke J. Radionuclides - reasons and and teaching. Nuklearmedizin 2009; 48: 55-57.
5. Brix G, Nosske D, Glatting G et al. A survey of PET activity in Germany during 1999. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 1091-1097.
6. Cuocolo A, Breatnach E. Multimodality imaging in Europe: a survey by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) and the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 163-167.
7. DESTATIS 2009: Fallpauschalenbezogene Krankenhausstatistik (DRG-Statistik) - Diagnosen, Prozeduren und Fallpauschalen der vollstationären Patientinnen und Patienten in Krankenhäusern 2008. In: Fachserie 12, Reihe 6.4. Statistisches Bundesamt Wiesbaden: 2009.
8. Dietlein M, Schicha H. Reimbursement of the PET in oncology in Europe: a questionnaire based survey. Nuklearmedizin 2003; 42: 80-85. (Pubitemid 36773320)
9. Hastings J, Adams EJ. Joint project of the international network of agencies for health technology assessment. Part 1: Survey results on diffusion, assessment, and clinical use of positron emission tomography. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22: 143-148.
10. Hellwig D, Baum RP, Kirsch C. FDG-PET, PET/CT and conventional nuclear medicine procedures in the evaluation of lung cancer: a systematic review. Nuklearmedizin 2009; 48: 59-69.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Iglehart JK. The new era of medical imaging progress and pitfalls. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2822-2828.
14. Kotzerke J, Dietlein M, Grünwald F, Bockisch A. PET and diagnostic technology evaluation in a global clinical process. Nuklearmedizin 2010; 49: 6-12.
15. Krause BJ, Beyer T, Bockisch A et al. FDG-PET/CT in oncology. German Guideline. Nuklearmedizin 2007; 46: 291-301.
16. Kuwabara Y, Koizumi K, Ushijima Y et al. Nuclear medicine practice in Japan: a report of the sixth nationwide survey in 2007. Ann Nucl Med 2009; 23: 209-215.
17. Lindner O, Burchert W, Bengel FM et al. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy 2007 in Germany-results of the query and current status. Nuklearmedizin 2009; 48: 131-137.
18. Nitzsche E. Persönliche Mitteilung. 2009.
19. OPS Version 2008: Systematisches Verzeichnis, Operationen- und Prozedurenschlüssel Internationale Klassifikation der Prozeduren in der Medizin (OPS). Band 1: Systematisches Verzeichnis. Hrsg.: Deutsches Institut fur Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI). Stuttgart: 2007.
20. Krebs in Deutschland 2003 - 2004: Häufigkeiten und Trends. 6. überarbeitete Auflage. Hrsg. Robert Koch-Institut und die Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V. Berlin: 2008.
21. Romano DH. Self-referral of imaging and increased utilization: some practical perspectives on tackling the dilemma. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6: 773-779.
22. Scheibler F, Raatz H, Suter K et al. Benefit assessment of PET in malignant lymphomas. Nuklearmedizin 2010; 49: 1-5.
23. Schmiegel W, Pox C, Reinacher-Schick A et al. S3-Leitlinie ,Karzinom" - Ergebnisse evidenzbasierter Konsensuskonferenzen am 677. Februar 2004 und am 8./9. Juni 2007 (fur die Themenkomplexe IV, VI und VII). Z Gastroenterol 2008; 46: 799-840.
24. Stergar H, Bockisch A, Eschmann SM et al. Influence of PET/CT-introduction on PET scanning frequency and indications. Results of a multicenter study. Nuklearmedizin 2007; 46: 57-64.
25. Weber WA, Grosu AL, Czernin J. Technology Insight: advances in molecular imaging and an appraisal of PET/CT scanning. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2008; 5: 160-170.