Randomized controlled trials on PET: A systematic review of topics, design, and quality

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 53, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1016-1025

  Scheibler, Fülöp ^a   Zumbé, Polina ^a   Janssen, Inger ^a   Viebahn, Melanie ^b   Schröer Günther, Milly ^a   Grosselfinger, Robert ^a   Hausner, Elke ^a   Sauerland, Stefan ^a   Lange, Stefan ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Evidence based medicine; Positron emission tomography; Randomized controlled trials; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; CYTARABINE; DEXAMETHASONE; DOXORUBICIN; ETOPOSIDE; IFOSFAMIDE; METHOTREXATE; PREDNISONE; RITUXIMAB; VINCRISTINE; VINDESINE;

CANCER STAGING; COLORECTAL CANCER; DATA BASE; DEMENTIA; DEPRESSION; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; NONHODGKIN LYMPHOMA; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TINNITUS; TREATMENT RESPONSE; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMANS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PUBLICATION BIAS; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84863462975     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.111.101089     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480-508.
2. Hillner BE, Tosteson AN, Song Y, et al. Growth in the use of PET for six cancer types after coverage by Medicare: additive or replacement? J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9:33-41.
3. Bedford M, Maisey MN. Requirements for clinical PET: comparisons within Europe. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:208-221. (Pubitemid 38173696)
4. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88-94.
5. Gazelle GS, Kessler L, Lee DW, et al. A framework for assessing the value of diagnostic imaging in the era of comparative effectiveness research. Radiology. 2011;261:692-698.
6. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM. Various randomized designs can be used to evaluate medical tests. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:364-373.
7. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. 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)
8. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336:1106-1110. (Pubitemid 351731739)
9. Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG, Mol BW. Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet. 2000;356:1844-1847.
10. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Bossuyt PM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:E1-E12.
11. 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.
12. Valk PE. Randomized controlled trials are not appropriate for imaging technology evaluation. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1125-1126. (Pubitemid 30463992)
13. 18F-FDG PET: a randomized study. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1036-1041.
14. 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.
15. 18F-FDG and integration with clinical management teams: the Ottawa-FIVE substudy of the PARR 2 trial. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:567-574.
16. 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.
17. Sargent DJ, Conley BA, Allegra C, Collette L. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2020-2027. (Pubitemid 46211382)
18. Simon R. Clinical trial designs for evaluating the medical utility of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in oncology. Per Med. 2010;7:33-47.
19. Dührsen U, Huttmann A, Jockel KH, Muller S. Positron emission tomography guided therapy of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas: the PETAL trial. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1757-1760.
20. Picardi M, De Renzo A, Pane F, et al. Randomized comparison of consolidation radiation versus observation in bulky Hodgkin's lymphoma with post-chemotherapy negative positron emission tomography scans. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48:1721-1727. (Pubitemid 47386707)
21. Bonow RO, Maurer G, Lee KL, et al. Myocardial viability and survival in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1617-1625.
22. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Comparison of top-performing search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94:451-455. (Pubitemid 44837825)
23. Beanlands R, Nichol G, Ruddy TD, et al. Evaluation of outcome and costeffectiveness using an FDG PET-guided approach to management of patients with coronary disease and severe left ventricular dysfunction (PARR-2): rationale, design, and methods. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:776-794. (Pubitemid 37518393)
24. Beanlands RS, Ruddy TD, deKemp RA, et al. Positron emission tomography and recovery following revascularization (PARR-1): the importance of scar and the development of a prediction rule for the degree of recovery of left ventricular function. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1735-1743. (Pubitemid 35341950)
25. 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.
26. 18F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch cooperative randomized study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1800-1806.
27. Plewnia C, Reimold M, Najib A, Reischl G, Plontke SK, Gerloff C. Moderate therapeutic efficacy of positron emission tomography-navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic tinnitus: a randomised, controlled pilot study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:152-156. (Pubitemid 46220212)
28. Siebelink HM, Blanksma PK, Crijns HJ, et al. No difference in cardiac event-free survival between positron emission tomography-guided and single-photon emission computed tomography-guided patient management: a prospective, randomized comparison of patients with suspicion of jeopardized myocardium. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:81-88. (Pubitemid 32051722)
29. 18FDG-PET in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:875-880.
30. 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.
31. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, Verboom P, Boers M. Toward less futile surgery in non-small cell lung cancer? A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22:89-98. (Pubitemid 32124732)
32. Tsai CS, Lai CH, Chang TC, et al. A prospective randomized trial to study the impact of pretreatment FDG-PET for cervical cancer patients with MRI-detected positive pelvic but negative para-aortic lymphadenopathy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:477-484.
33. Viney RC, Boyer MJ, King MT, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the role of positron emission tomography in the management of stage I and II non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2357-2362. (Pubitemid 41115392)