Contribution of imaging to cancer care costs

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 52, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2011, Pages

  Yang, Yang ^a   Czernin, Johannes ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

18F FDG; CMS; Cost effectiveness; Medicare; PET CT cost

Indexed keywords

BEVACIZUMAB; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROURACIL; FOLINATE CALCIUM; OXALIPLATIN;

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CANCER THERAPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MEDICARE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 83755206208     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.110.085621     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Buck AK, Herrmann K, Stargardt T, Dechow T, Krause BJ, Schreyogg J. Economic evaluation of PET and PET/CT in oncology: evidence and methodologic approaches. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:401-412.
2. Hicks RJ, Borland J. Are health economics making us sick? J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1665-1667.
3. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, et al. Impact of dedicated brain PET on intended patient management in participants of the National Oncologic PET Registry. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13:161-165.
4. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, et al. The impact of positron emission tomography (PET) on expected management during cancer treatment: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. Cancer. 2009;115:410-418.
5. 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.
6. Dinan MA, Curtis LH, Hammill BG, et al. Changes in the use and costs of diagnostic imaging among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, 1999-2006. JAMA. 2010;303:1625-1631.
7. Drummond MF. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2005.
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Lung cancer: diagnosis and treatment. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG24. Issued February 2005. Updated July 5, 2011. Accessed August 11, 2011.
9. Meropol NJ, Schulman KA. Cost of cancer care: issues and implications. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:180-186. (Pubitemid 350003031)
10. Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:117-128.
11. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74-108. (Pubitemid 40372904)
12. Buxton MJ. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1133-1142. (Pubitemid 44683369)
13. Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1539-1544. (Pubitemid 46733080)
14. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2010 ASP drug pricing files. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/01a19- 2010aspfiles.asp. Updated June 17, 2011. Accessed August 11, 2011.
15. Potetz L, DeWilde LF. Cancer and Medicare: A Chartbook. Washington, DC: American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; 2009.
16. Warren JL, Yabroff KR, Meekins A, Topor M, Lamont EB, Brown ML. Evaluation of trends in the cost of initial cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:888-897. (Pubitemid 351881955)
17. Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A, et al. Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:630-641.
18. Meropol NJ, Schrag D, Smith TJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3868-3874.
19. Hoffman JM, Shah ND, Vermeulen LC, et al. Projecting future drug expenditures - 2008. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65:234-253. (Pubitemid 351220774)
20. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to Congress: Variation and Innovation in Medicare, 6/06 Update. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2006.
21. Brock DW. Ethical and value issues in insurance coverage for cancer treatment. Oncologist. 2010;15(suppl 1):36-42.
22. Gagnon MA, Lexchin J. The cost of pushing pills: a new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e1.
23. Light DW, Warburton R. Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research. Biosocieties. 2011;6:34-50.
24. A Bill to Amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to Provide for a Voluntary Program for Prescription Drug Coverage Under the Medicare Program, to Modernize the Medicare Program, and for Other Purposes (brief title: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) (PL 108-173; December 18, 2003). United States Statutes at Large 117(2003):2066-2480.
25. National Cancer Institute. SEER cancer statistics review 1975-2008. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975-2008/browse-csr.php. Accessed August 11, 2011.
26. Health Care Financing Administration. National coverage determination (NCD) for PET (FDG) for lung cancer. Available at: http://www.cmms.hhs.gov/ medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId=301&ncdver= 2&bc=AgAAQAAAAAAA&. Accessed September 2, 2011.
27. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2011 OPPS final median files. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/apps/ama/license.asp?file5/ HospitalOutpatientPPS/Downloads/CMS-1504-FC-Medians-Files.zip. Accessed May 11, 2011.
28. Madden Yee K. PET advocates urge CMS to rethink proposed reimbursement rates. AuntMinnie.com Web site. Available at: www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?sec= ser&sub=def&pag=dis&itemID=56259. Published September 30, 2002. Accessed August 11, 2011.
29. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Median costs for hospital outpatient services, by ambulatory payment classification (APC) group CY 2008. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/HospitalOutpatientPPS/Downloads/CMS1392FC- Median-File-by-APC.zip. Accessed January 11, 2011.
30. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Physician fee schedule look-up. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/overview. aspx. Updated June 7, 2011. Accessed August 11, 2011.
31. Burns M. The Market for PET Radiopharmaceuticals & PET Imaging. Las Vegas, NV: Bio-Tech Systems; 2010.
32. 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. (Pubitemid 26321616)
33. Gambhir SS, Shepherd JE, Shah BD, et al. Analytical decision model for the cost-effective management of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2113-2125. (Pubitemid 28265048)
34. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1388-1393.
35. Verboom P, van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in staging non-small cell lung cancer: the PLUS study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1444-1449. (Pubitemid 37356109)
36. Fischer B, Lassen U, Mortensen J, et al. Preoperative staging of lung cancer with combined PET-CT. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:32-39.
37. Søgaard R, Fischer BM, Mortensen J, Højgaard L, Lassen U. Preoperative staging of lung cancer with PET/CT: cost-effectiveness evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:802-809.
38. Schreyögg J, Weller J, Stargardt T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hybrid PET/CT for staging of non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1668-1675.
39. 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.
40. Maziak DE, Darling GE, Inculet RI, et al. Positron emission tomography in staging early lung cancer: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:221-228, W-48.
41. Ung YC, Sun A, MacRae R, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography (PET) in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a prospective randomized trial (PET START). J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(suppl):abstract 7548.
42. Wahl RL, Siegel BA, Coleman RE, Gatsonis CG. Prospective multicenter study of axillary nodal staging by positron emission tomography in breast cancer: a report of the Staging Breast Cancer with PET Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:277-285. (Pubitemid 41095092)
43. Medicare Services Advisory Committee. Positron Emission Tomography: Technology Assessment Report. Canberra, New South Wales, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2000.
44. 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.
45. 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of response of solid extracerebral tumors to systemic cytotoxic neoadjuvant treatment: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1507-1516.
46. 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. (Pubitemid 47308659)
47. Benz MR, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach MS, et al. FDG-PET/CT imaging predicts histopathologic treatment responses after the initial cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:2856-2863.
48. Kelsen DP, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al. Long-term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA intergroup 113): a random assignment trial comparison of chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3719-3725. (Pubitemid 47372613)
49. Gortzak E, Azzarelli A, Buesa J, et al. A randomised phase II study on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for 'high-risk' adult soft-tissue sarcoma. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:1096-1103.
50. 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. (Pubitemid 350002965)
51. Graham MM, Badawi RD, Wahl RL. Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers: an imaging response assessment team survey. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:311-317.
52. Beyer T, Czernin J, Freudenberg LS.Variations in clinical PET/CToperations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:303-310.
53. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging - version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181-200.
54. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):122S-150S.
55. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National coverage determination (NCD) for positron emission tomography (FDG) for oncologic conditions (220.6.17). Available at: https//www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage- database/detailsncd-details.aspx?NCDId=331&ncdver=3&NCAId= 85&NcaName=Positron+Emission+Tomography+%28FDG%29&IsPopup=y&bc= AAAAAAAAIAAA&. Accessed August 11, 2011.