Economic evaluation of PET and PET/CT in oncology: Evidence and methodologic approaches

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 6-17

  Buck, Andreas K ^a   Herrmann, Ken ^a   Stargardt, Tom ^b,c   Dechow, Tobias ^a   Krause, Bernd Joachim ^a   Schreyögg, Jonas ^b,c  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Computerized tomography; Cost effectiveness; Image fusion; Positron emission tomography; Response to therapy; Treatment individualization; Tumor staging

Indexed keywords

1,4,7,10 TETRAAZACYCLODODECANE 1,4,7,10 TETRAACETIC ACID TYROSINE 3 OCTREOTIDE GA 68; 2 FLUOROETHYL LEVO TYROSINE F 18; 3' FLUOROTHYMIDINE F 18; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CHOLINE C 11; CISPLATIN; CYTOSTATIC AGENT; FLUORO 5 IODO 1 BETA DEXTRO ARABINOFURANOSYLURACIL I 124; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROURACIL; GALACTOARGINYLGLYCYLASPARTIC ACID F 18; GEFITINIB; IMATINIB; METHYL LEVO METHIONINE C 11; NITROSOUREA; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; SODIUM I 124; TAMOXIFEN; THYMIDINE C 11; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; WATER O 15;

ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SURGERY; CELL PROLIFERATION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM CANCER; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG COST; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG METABOLISM; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ESOPHAGUS CANCER; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; LUNG METASTASIS; LUNG NODULE; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; LYMPHOMA; MELANOMA; MICROMETASTASIS; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; NEOPLASM; NONHUMAN; ONCOLOGY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PANCREAS CANCER; PARANEOPLASTIC SYNDROME; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOLID TUMOR; THYROID CANCER; TREATMENT PLANNING; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME; ANIMAL; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST; ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REVIEW; SCINTISCANNING; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ANIMALS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77956632035     PISSN: 00914916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.108.059584     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496-507.
2. 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.
3. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2500-2507.
4. Seam P, Juweid ME, Cheson BD. The role of FDG-PET scans in patients with lymphoma. Blood. 2007;110:3507-3516.
5. von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology. 2006;238:405-422.
6. Weber WA. Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3282-3292.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Abschlussbericht des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses nach § 91 Abs. 7 SGB V "Krankenhausbehandlung." Bundesanzeiger. 2006;43:1374.
11. Bury T, Dowlati A, Paulus P, et al. Evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule by positron emission tomography imaging. Eur Respir J. 1996;9:410-414.
12. Gupta N, Gill H, Graeber G, Bishop H, Hurst J, Stephens T. Dynamic positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in differentiation of benign from malignant lung/mediastinal lesions. Chest. 1998;114:1105-1111.
13. Patz EF Jr, Connolly J, Herndon J. Prognostic value of thoracic FDG PET imaging after treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. AJR. 2000;174:769-774.
14. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480-508.
15. Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, et al. Preoperative staging of nonsmall-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:254-261.
16. Sachs S, Bilfinger TV. The impact of positron emission tomography on clinical decision making in a university-based multidisciplinary lung cancer practice. Chest. 2005;128:698-703.
17. Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:6-12.
18. 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.
19. Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:983-995.
20. Ott K, Herrmann K, Lordick F, et al. Early metabolic response evaluation by fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography allows in vivo testing of chemosensitivity in gastric cancer: long-term results of a prospective study. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:2012-2018.
21. Lordick F, Ott K, Krause BJ, et al. PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:797-805.
22. Ciernik IF, Dizendorf E, Baumert BG, et al. Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography (PET/CT): a feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:853-863.
23. Grosu AL, Molls M, Zimmermann FB, et al. High-precision radiation therapy with integrated biological imaging and tumor monitoring: evolution of the Munich concept and future research options. Strahlenther Onkol. 2006;182:361-368.
24. Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Ball DL, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography staging in radical radiotherapy candidates with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: powerful correlation with survival and high impact on treatment. Cancer. 2001;92:886-895.
25. Facey K, Bradbury I, Laking G, Payne E. Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography imaging in selected cancers. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii-iv, xi-267.
26. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O'Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 2005.
27. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. Issue date: June 2008. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2009.
28. 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.
29. Gambhir SS, Hoh CK, Phelps ME, Madar I, Maddahi J. Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1428-1436.
30. Miles KA. An approach to demonstrating cost-effectiveness of diagnostic imaging modalities in Australia illustrated by positron emission tomography. Australas Radiol. 2001;45:9-18.
31. Keith CJ, Miles KA, Griffiths MR, Wong D, Pitman AG, Hicks RJ. Solitary pulmonary nodules: accuracy and cost-effectiveness of sodium iodide FDG-PET using Australian data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1016-1023.
32. Kosuda S, Ichihara 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;117:346-353.
33. 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. 2000; 27:1598-1609.
34. Kelly RF, Tran T, Holmstrom A, Murar JE, Segurola RJ Jr. Accuracy and costeffectiveness of [18F]-2-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography scan in potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Chest. 2004;125:1413-1423.
35. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-smallcell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359: 1388-1393.
36. 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.
37. Silvestri GA, Gould MK, Margolis ML, et al. Noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: ACCP evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest. 2007;132(3 suppl):178S-201S.
38. Park KC, Schwimmer J, Shepherd JE, et al. Decision analysis for the costeffective management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233:310-319.
39. Lejeune C, Bismuth MJ, Conroy T, et al. Use of a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET in the management of metachronous liver metastases of colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:2020-2028.
40. Gambhir SS, Valk P, Shepherd JE, Hoh CK, Allen M, Phelps ME. Cost-effective analysis modeling of the role of FDG PET in the management of patients with recurrent colorectal cancer [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:90-91.
41. Hollenbeak CS, Lowe VJ, Stack BC Jr. The cost-effectiveness of fluorodeoxyglucose 18-F positron emission tomography in the N0 neck. Cancer. 2001; 92:2341-2348.
42. Hoh CK, Glaspy J, Rosen P, et al. Whole-body FDG-PET imaging for staging of Hodgkin's disease and lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:343-348.
43. 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.
44. Heinrich S, Goerres GW, Schafer M, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography influences on the management of resectable pancreatic cancer and its cost-effectiveness. Ann Surg. 2005;242:235-243.
45. Adler LP, Faulhaber PF, Schnur KC, Al-Kasi NL, Shenk RR. Axillary lymph node metastases: screening with [F-18]2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) PET. Radiology. 1997;203:323-327.
46. Dooms CA, Lievens YN, Vansteenkiste JF. Cost-utility analysis of chemotherapy in symptomatic advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. Eur Respir J. 2006;27:895-901.
47. Fossella F, Pereira JR, von Pawel J, et al. Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3016-3024.
48. Miller FG, Brody H. What makes placebo-controlled trials unethical? Am J Bioeth. 2002;2:3-9.
49. Bradbury I, Bonell E, Boynton J, et al. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Imaging in Cancer Management. Glasgow, U.K.: Health Technology Board for Scotland; 2002.
50. Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:455-463.
51. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Methods for Assessment of the Relation of Benefits to Costs in the German Statutory Health Care System. Version 1.1. Available at: http://www.iqwig.de/download/08-10-14_Methods_of_the_Relation_of_Benefits_to_Costs_v_1_1.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2009.
52. Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Kris MG, Potanovich LM. Quality of life assessment in individuals with lung cancer: testing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A(suppl 1):S51-S58.
53. Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Kris MG, McCoy S, Donaldson GW, Moinpour CM. A comparison of visual analogue and numerical rating scale formats for the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS): does format affect patient ratings of symptoms and quality of life? Qual Life Res. 2005;14:837-847.
54. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53-72.
55. Doyle S, Lloyd A, Walker M. Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2008;62:374-380.
56. Bird A, Norman R, Goodall S. Economic Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): CHERE Working Paper 2007/6. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/her/chewps/2007-6.html. Accessed December 8, 2009.
57. Severens JL, Milne RJ. Discounting health outcomes in economic evaluation: the ongoing debate. Value Health. 2004;7:397-401.
58. Bos JM, Postma MJ, Annemans L. Discounting health effects in pharmacoeconomic evaluations: current controversies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23: 639-649.
59. Medicare National Coverage Determinations Manual. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/ncd103c1_Part4.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2009. Publication 100-03, Part 4.
60. Federal Joint Committee ("Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss" [G-BA]). Bekanntmachung eines Beschlusses des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses Qualitätssicherungsvereinbarung PET. Bundesanzeiger. 2007;97:5382.