A framework for assessing the value of diagnostic imaging in the era of comparative effectiveness research

Radiology

Volumn 261, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 692-698

  Gazelle, G Scott ^a   Kessler, Larry ^b   Lee, David W ^c   McGinn, Thomas ^d   Menzin, Joseph ^e   Neumann, Peter J ^f   Van Amerongen, Derek ^g   White, Leigh Ann ^e  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c GE HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^d NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e Boston Health Economics   (United States)

^f TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g Humana Health Plans of Ohio   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; CANCER STAGING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISABILITY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HEALTH CARE COST; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MORTALITY; NOTE; PATIENT CARE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRECANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 81555218176     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110155     Document Type: Note

References (29)

1. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the President and Congress. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/cerannualrpt.pdf. Published 2009. Accessed March 31, 2010.
2. Association of American Medical Colleges. Summary of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Provisions. Association of American Medical Colleges. http:// www.aamc.org/reform/summary/pcorsummary04022010.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed September 13, 2010.
3. Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. N Engl J Med 2010;363(16):1495-1497.
4. Chambers JD, Neumann PJ. US healthcare reform: implications for health economics and outcomes research. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010;10(3):215-216.
5. Neumann PJ, Tunis SR. Medicare and medical technology - the growing demand for relevant outcomes. N Engl J Med 2010;362(5):377-379.
6. Fineberg HV. Evaluation of computed tomography: achievement and challenge. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1978;131(1):1-4. (Pubitemid 8368531)
7. Fineberg HV, Bauman R, Sosman M. Computerized cranial tomography. Effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. JAMA 1977; 238(3):224-227. (Pubitemid 8154087)
8. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11(2):88-94.
9. Lijmer JG, Leeflang M, Bossuyt PM. Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Decis Making 2009;29(5):E13-E21.
10. Pearson SD, Knudsen AB, Scherer RW, Weissberg J, Gazelle GS. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of a diagnostic technology: CT colonography. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27(6):1503-1514.
11. Hollingworth W, Jarvik JG. Technology assessment in radiology: putting the evidence in evidence-based radiology. Radiology 2007; 244(1):31-38. (Pubitemid 46981956)
12. Lee DW, Neumann PJ, Rizzo JA. Understanding the medical and nonmedical value of diagnostic testing. Value Health 2010; 13(2):310-314.
13. Fuchs VR, Garber AM. The new technology assessment. N Engl J Med 1990;323(10): 673-677. (Pubitemid 20280200)
14. Bresnahan BW. Economic evaluation in radiology: reviewing the literature and examples in oncology. Acad Radiol 2010;17(9):1090-1095.
15. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs-same or different? Value Health 2009;12(4): 402-404.
16. Chambers JD, Neumann PJ, Buxton MJ. Does Medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med Decis Making 2010;30(4):E14-E27.
17. Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices - budget impact analysis. Value Health 2007;10(5): 336-347. (Pubitemid 47481105)
18. International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 2006;355(17):1763-1771.
19. Bach PB, Jett JR, Pastorino U, Tockman MS, Swensen SJ, Begg CB. Computed tomography screening and lung cancer outcomes. JAMA 2007;297(9):953-961. (Pubitemid 46376749)
20. National Cancer Institute. Lung cancer trial results show mortality benefit with low-dose CT: Twenty percent fewer lung cancer deaths seen among those who were screened with low-dose spiral CT than with chest X-ray. National Cancer Institute. http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/NLS TresultsRelease. Published 2010. Accessed November 30, 2010.
21. Neumann PJ. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve health care: opportunities and barriers. New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2005.
22. Mitka M. Colorectal cancer screening rates still fall far short of recommended levels. JAMA 2008;299(6):622. (Pubitemid 351252741)
23. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, Kim DH. CT colonography to screen for colorectal cancer and aortic aneurysm in the Medicare population: cost-effectiveness anal ysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(5):1332-1340.
24. Knudsen AB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102(16):1238-1252.
25. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision memo for screening computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer (CAG-00396N). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. http://www.cms.gov/mcd/ viewdecisionmemo.asp?from25viewdecisionmemo.asp&id5220&. Published 2009. Accessed July 27, 2010.
26. Dhruva SS, Phurrough SE, Salive ME, Redberg RF. CMS's landmark decision on CT colonography - examining the relevant data. N Engl J Med 2009;360(26):2699-2701.
27. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59(4):225-249.
28. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision memo for positron emission tomography (FDG) for cervical cancer (CAG-00181R2). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. http://www.cms.gov/mcd/viewnca.asp? from5basket&where5 &what5&nca-id5232&basket5nca:00181R2:232: Positron+Emission+Tomography+%28FDG%29+for+Cervical+Cancer:Closed:2nd+Recon:13. Published 2009. Accessed July 28, 2010.
29. Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Delbeke D. The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy response in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med 2009;50(Suppl 1):64S-73S.