An economic evaluation of positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 15, Issue 18, 2011, Pages 1-

  Auguste, P ^a   Barton, P ^a   Hyde, C ^b   Roberts, T E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; TUMOR MARKER;

BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST OF ILLNESS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOGRAPHY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STRATEGIC PLANNING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION TREES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 79960787605     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta15180     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Office for National Statistics. Breast cancer incidence, mortality and survival. London: ONS; 2009.
2. The BMJ Publishing Group. Clinical evidence. Issue 15. London: The BMJ Publishing Group; 2006.
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. CG80 Early and locally advanced breast cancer: full guideline. London: NICE; 2009. URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG80/Guidance/pdf/English (accessed January 2010).
4. Barentsz J, Takahashi S, Oyen W, Mus R, De MP, Reznek R, et al. Commonly used imaging techniques for diagnosis and staging. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3234-44.
5. Schnall M, Rosen M. Primer on imaging technologies for cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3225-33.
6. Love C, Din AS, Tomas MB, Kalapparambath TP, Palestro CJ. Radionuclide bone imaging: an illustrative review. Radiographics 2003;23:341-58.
7. Hayes DF. Tumor markers for breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1993;4:807-19.
8. Belli P, Costantini M, Romani M, Marano P, Pastore G. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer recurrence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;73:223-35.
9. Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Wohlfart K, von IE, Fellner FA. Comparison of whole-body MRI with automatic moving table technique and bone scintigraphy for screening for bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2004;14:99-105.
10. Walker R, Kessar P, Blanchard R, Dimasi M, Harper K, DeCarvalho V, et al. Turbo STIR magnetic resonance imaging as a whole-body screening tool for metastases in patients with breast carcinoma: preliminary clinical experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;11:343-50.
11. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE, Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology 2004;231:305-32.
12. Kostakoglu L, Agress H, Jr., Goldsmith SJ. Clinical role of FDG PET in evaluation of cancer patients. Radiographics 2003;23:315-40.
13. von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology 2006;238:405-22.
14. The Royal College of Radiologists. PET-CT in the UK: A strategy for development and integration of a leading edge technology within routein clinical practice. London: RCR; 2005.
15. UK PETCT Advisory Board Oncology FDG PETCT scan referral criteria. 2009. URL: http://bnmsonline.co.uk/dmdocuments/referral_indications_pet-ct_board_2009.pdf (accessed June 2009).
16. Isasi CR, Moadel RM, Blaufox MD. A meta-analysis of FDG-PET for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;90:105-12.
17. Pennant M, Takwoingi Y, Pennant L, Davenport C, Fry-Smith A, Eisinga A, et al. A systematic review of positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence. Health Technol Assess 2010;14(50).
18. Abe K, Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y, Koga H, Baba S, Hayashi K, et al. Comparison of 18FDG-PET with 99mTc-HMDP scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2005;19:573-9.
19. Aide N, Huchet V, Switsers O, Heutte N, Delozier T, Hardouin A, et al. Influence of CA 15-3 blood level and doubling time on diagnostic performances of 18F-FDG PET in breast cancer patients with occult recurrence. Nucl Med Commun 2007;28:267-72.
20. Bender H, Kirst J, Palmedo H, Schomburg A, Wagner U, Ruhlmann J, et al. Value of 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging of recurrent breast carcinoma. Anticancer Res 1997;17:1687-92.
21. Dirisamer A, Halpern BS, Flory D, Wolf F, Beheshti M, Mayerhoefer ME, et al. Integrated contrast-enhanced diagnostic whole-body PET/CT as a first-line restaging modality in patients with suspected metastatic recurrence of breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 2010;73:294-9.
22. Fueger BJ, Weber WA, Quon A, Crawford TL, len-Auerbach MS, Halpern BS, et al. Performance of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography and integrated PET/CT in restaged breast cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol 2005;7:369-76.
23. Gallowitsch HJ, Kresnik E, Gasser J, Kumnig G, Igerc I, Mikosch P, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging. Investigative Radiology 2003;38:250-6.
24. Goerres GW, Michel SCA, Fehr MK, Kaim AH, Steinert HC, Seifert B, et al. Follow-up of women with breast cancer: Comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1635-44.
25. Guillemard S, Eberle Pouzeratte MC, Lamy P-J, Romieu G, Rossi M, Artus JC. 18FDG PET/CT and CA 15-3 in the early diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer [French]. Med Nucl 2006;30:209-16.
26. Hathaway PB, Mankoff DA, Maravilla KR, ustin-Seymour MM, Ellis GK, Gralow JR, et al. Value of combined FDG PET and MR imaging in the evaluation of suspected recurrent localregional breast cancer: preliminary experience. Radiology 1999;210:807-14.
27. Haug AR, Schmidt GP, Klingenstein A, Heinemann V, Stieber P, Priebe M, et al. F-18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the follow-up of breast cancer with elevated levels of tumor markers. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:629-34.
28. Hubner KF, Smith GT, Thie JA, Bell JL, Nelson HS, Hanna WT. The potential of F-18-FDG PET in breast cancer. Detection of primary lesions, axillary lymph node metastases, or distant metastases. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:197-205.
29. Kamel EM, Wyss MT, Fehr MK, von Schulthess GK, Goerres GW. [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with suspected recurrence of breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2003;129:147-53.
30. Kim T-S, Moon WK, Lee D-S, Chung J-K, Lee MC, Youn Y-K, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. World J Surg 2001;25:829-34.
31. Lin W-Y, Tsai S-C, Cheng K-Y, Yen R-F, Kao C-H. Fluorine-18 FDG-PET in detecting local recurrence and distant metastases in breast cancer Taiwanese experiences. Cancer Invest 2002;20:725-9.
32. Liu CS, Shen YY, Lin CC, Yen RF, Kao CH, Liu CS, et al. Clinical impact of [(18)F]FDG-PET in patients with suspected recurrent breast cancer based on asymptomatically elevated tumor marker serum levels: a preliminary report. Jap J Clin Oncol 2002;32:244-7.
33. Lonneux M, Borbath I, Berliere M, Kirkove C, Pauwels S. The place of whole-body PET FDG for the diagnosis of distant recurrence of breast cancer. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:45-9.
34. Moon DH, Maddahi J, Silverman DH, Glaspy JA, Phelps ME, Hoh CK, et al. Accuracy of whole-body fluorine-18-FDG PET for the detection of recurrent or metastatic breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1998;39:431-5.
35. Ohta M, Tokuda Y, Suzuki Y, Kubota M, Makuuchi H, Tajima T, et al. Whole body PET for the evaluation of bony metastases in patients with breast cancer: comparison with 99Tcm- MDP bone scintigraphy. Nucl Med Commun 2001;22:875-9.
36. Pecking AP, Corone-Mechelany C, Alberini JL, Gutman F, Sarandi F, Bertrand-Kermorgant F, et al. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) using 18FDG and occult diseases in cancerology: The experiment of the Rene Huguenin Center [French]. Immuno-Anal Biol Special 2004;19:269-73.
37. Radan L, Ben-Haim S, Bar-Shalom R, Guralnik L, Israel O, Radan L, et al. The role of FDGPET/CT in suspected recurrence of breast cancer. Cancer 2006;107:2545-51.
38. Raileanu I, Grahek D, Montravers F, Kerrou K, Aide N, Younsi N, et al. Comparison of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium bisphosphonate bone scintigraphy to detect bone metastases in patients with breast cancer [French]. Med Nucl 2004;28:297-303.
39. Santiago JF, Gonen M, Yeung H, Macapinlac H, Larson S, Santiago JFY, et al. A retrospective analysis of the impact of 18F-FDG PET scans on clinical management of 133 breast cancer patients. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;50:61-7.
40. Schmidt GP, Baur-Melnyk A, Haug A, Heinemann V, Bauerfeind I, Reiser MF, et al. Comprehensive imaging of tumor recurrence in breast cancer patients using whole-body MRI at 1.5 and 3 T compared to FDG-PET-CT. Eur J Radiol 2008;65:47-58.
41. Suarez M, Perez-Castejon MJ, Jimenez A, Domper M, Ruiz G, Montz R, et al. Early diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer with FDG-PET in patients with progressive elevation of serum tumor markers. Q J Nucl Med 2002;46:113-21.
42. Veit-Haibach P, Antoch G, Beyer T, Stergar H, Schleucher R, Hauth EA, et al. FDG-PET/CT in restaging of patients with recurrent breast cancer: possible impact on staging and therapy. Br J Radiol 2007;80:508-15.
43. Vranjesevic D, Filmont JE, Meta J, Silverman DH, Phelps ME, Rao J, et al. Whole-body (18) F-FDG PET and conventional imaging for predicting outcome in previously treated breast cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2002;43:325-9.
44. Wolfort RM, Li BDL, Johnson LW, Turnage RH, Lilien D, Ampil F, et al. The role of wholebody fluorine-18-FDG positron emission tomography in the detection of recurrence in symptomatic patients with stages II and III breast cancer. World J Surg 2006;30:1422-7.
45. Yang SN, Liang JA, Lin FJ, Kao CH, Lin CC, Lee CC, et al. Comparing whole body (18)F-2- deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate bone scan to detect bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2002;128:325-8.
46. Eubank WB, Mankoff D, Bhattacharya M, Gralow J, Linden H, Ellis G, et al. Impact of FDG PET on defining the extent of disease and on the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:479-86.
47. Roberts T, Henderson J, Mugford M, Bricker L, Neilson J, Garcia J. Antenatal ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities: a systematic review of studies of cost and cost effectiveness. BJOG 2002;109:44-56.
48. 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.
49. Sloka J, Hollet D, Mathews M. Cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography in breast cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2005;7:351-60.
50. Heinrich SM, Goerres GWM, Schafer MM, Sagmeister MM, Bauerfeind PM, Pestalozzi BCM, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography influences on the management of resectable pancreatic cancer and its cost-effectiveness. Ann Surg 2005;242:235-43.
51. Jacklin PB, Barrington SF, Roxburgh JC, Jackson G, Sariklis D, West PA, et al. Costeffectiveness of preoperative positron emission tomography in ischemic heart disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:1403-9.
52. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excelence. CG81 Advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment. London: NICE; 2009.
53. Hayen A, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Bossuyt P. Appropriate statistical methods are required to assess diagnostic tests for replacement, add-on, and triage. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:883-91.
54. Lin SCC. Some results on combinations of two binary screening tests. J Biopharm Stat 1999;9:81-8.
55. Tang M-L. On simultaneous assessment of sensitivity and specificity when combining two diagnostic tests. Stat Med 2004;23:3593-605.
56. Curtis L. Unit costs of health care and social care 2009. 2009.
57. Department of Health. Reference costs 2002-03 collection: costing and activity guidance and requirements. 2004. URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4070195
58. Department of Health. Reference costs 2007-08 collection: costing and activity guidance and requirements. 2004. URL: www.dh.gov/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_098945
59. Guadagni F, Ferroni P, Carlini S, Mariotti S, Spila A, Aloe S, et al. A re-evaluation of Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) as a serum marker for breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Clin Can Res 2001;7:2357-62.
60. Cooper NJ, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Turner D, Lambert PC. A Bayesian approach to Markov modelling in cost-effectiveness analyses: application to taxane use in advanced breast cancer. J Roy Stat Soc Stat Soc 2003;166:389-405.
61. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998;316:736-41.
62. Government Actuary's Department. Life tables. 2009.
63. Sadatsafavi M, Najafzadeh M, Marra C. Technical note: acceptability curves could be misleading when correlated strategies are compared. Med Decis Making 2008;28:306-7.
64. Fenwick E, Bernie JO, Andrew B. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004;13:405-15.