Generating evidence for clinical benefit of PET/CT in diagnosing cancer patients

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 52, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2011, Pages

  Vach, Werner ^a   Høilund Carlsen, Poul Flemming ^b   Gerke, Oke ^b   Weber, Wolfgang A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Accuracy studies; Clinical benefit; PET CT; Randomized diagnostic trial; Response evaluation; Staging

Indexed keywords

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PALLIATIVE THERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 83755162973     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.110.085704     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Schuenemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. GRADE: assessing the quality of evidence for diagnostic recommendations. ACP J Club. 2008;149:JC6-2-JC6-3.
2. Fryback DG, Thornbury J. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88-94.
3. Köbberling J, Trampisch H, Windeler J. Memorandum for the evaluation of diagnostic measures. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1990;28:873-879.
4. Scheibler F, Raatz H, Suter K, et al. Benefit assessment of PET in malignant lymphomas: the IQWiG point of view. Nuklearmedizin. 2010;49:1-5.
5. Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Diagnostics assessment programme: interim process statement. Version 7. Published August 2010. Available at: http://www.nice.org. uk/media/84C/85/DAPInterimProcessStatement.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2011.
6. Petherick ES, Villanueva EV, Dumville J, Bryan EJ, Dharmage S. An evaluation of methods used in health technology assessments produced for the Medical Services Advisory Committee. Med J Aust. 2007;187:289-292.
7. Shaw LJ, Min JK, Hachamovitch R, et al. Cardiovascular imaging research at the crossroads. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:316-324.
8. Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med. 2010;29:1963-1976.
9. Sundhedsstyrelsen. Antallet af undersøgelser og stra° ledosis 2009. Available at: http://www.sst.dk/~/media/Sundhedogforebyggelse/ Straalebeskyttelse/SIS/Radioaktivitet/Nuklearmedicin/Tabel-1-Undersoegelser. ashx. Accessed November 8, 2011.
10. Medical Options 2010. PET & molecular imaging: tracking growth in Europe. Available at: http://www.medicaloptions.co.uk/assets/PETproposal10e.pdf. Published September 2010. Accessed October 31, 2011.
11. Evans WK, Laupacis A, Gulenchyn KY, Levin L, Levine M. Evidence-based approach to the introduction of positron emission tomography in Ontario, Canada. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5607-5613.
12. Lindsay MJ, Siegel BA, Tunis SR, et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded Medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development. AJR. 2007;188:1109-1113. (Pubitemid 46496951)
13. 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.
14. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Deeks JJ. When should a new test become the current reference standard? Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:816-822.
15. Yang Y, Czernin J. Contribution of imaging to cancer care costs. J Nucl Med. 2011:52(suppl):86S-92S.
16. Rutjes AW, Reitsma J, Vandenbroucke J, Glas A, Bossuyt P. Case-control and two-gate designs in diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2005;51:1335-1341. (Pubitemid 41060863)
17. Freedman LS. Evaluating and comparing imaging techniques: a review and classification of study designs. Br J Radiol. 1987;60:1071-1081. (Pubitemid 17155562)
18. Gerke O, Vach W, Høilund-Carlsen PF. PET/CT in cancer: methodological considerations for comparative diagnostic phase II studies with paired binary data. Methods Inf Med. 2008;47:470-479.
19. Bossuyt PM, Lijmer J, Mol B. Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet. 2000;356:1844-1847.
20. Van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Boers M. Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? For. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:129-131.
21. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PMM. Various randomized designs can be used to evaluate medical tests. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:364-373.
22. Valk PE. Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? Against. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:132-135. (Pubitemid 38133551)
23. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes R. 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. (Pubitemid 46780618)
24. Chee KG, Nguyen DV, Brown M, Gandara DR, Wun T, Lara PN Jr. Positron emission tomography and improved survival in patients with lung cancer: the Will Rogers phenomenon revisited. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1541-1549.
25. 18F]- fluorocholine positron emission/computed tomography for lymph node staging of patients with prostate cancer: preliminary results of a prospective study. BJU Int. 2010;106:639-643.
26. Briganti A, Blute ML, Eastham JH, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1251-1265.
27. Eden CG, Arora A, Rouse P. Extended vs standard pelvic lymphadenectomy during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2010;106:537-542.
28. Lu Y, Jin H, Genant H. On the non-inferiority of a diagnostic test based on paired observations. Stat Med. 2003;22:3029-3044. (Pubitemid 37160603)
29. Gerke O, Poulsen MH, Bouchelouche K, Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Vach W. PET/CT in cancer: moderate sample sizes may suffice to justify replacement of a regional gold standard. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11:381-385.
30. Lang EV, Berbaum KS, Lutgendorf SK. Large-core breast biopsy: abnormal salivary cortisol profiles associated with uncertainty of diagnosis. Radiology. 2009;250:631-637.
31. Moreno-Smith M, Lutgendorf SK, Sood AK. Impact of stress on cancer metastasis. Future Oncol. 2010;6:1863-1881.
32. Costanzo ES, Sood AK, Lutgendorf SK. Biobehavioral influences on cancer progression. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2011;31:109-132.
33. Lutgendorf SK, Sood AK, Antoni MH. Host factors and cancer progression: biobehavioral signaling pathways and interventions. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4094-4099.
34. Schunemann AHJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. GRADE: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 2008;336:1106-1110. (Pubitemid 351731739)
35. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med Overseas Ed. 1987;317:141-145.
36. Biesheuvel CJ, Grobbee DE, Moons KGM. Distraction from randomization in diagnostic research. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16:540-544. (Pubitemid 43928632)
37. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:187-190. (Pubitemid 46698171)
38. Weber WA. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):1S-10S.
39. Freemantle N, Strack T. Real-world effectiveness of new medicines should be evaluated by appropriately designed clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1053-1058.