Should positron emission tomography/computed tomography be the first rather than the last test performed in the assessment of cancer?

Cancer Imaging

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 315-323

  Hicks, Rodney J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Oncology; Positron emission tomography computed tomography; Randomized trial

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CONTRAST MEDIUM; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; FLUOROETHYLCHOLINE F 18; GADOTERIC ACID; OCTREOTIDE; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADVANCED CANCER; AGING; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURGERY; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; ESOPHAGUS CANCER; ESOPHAGUS RESECTION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEAD AND NECK SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; LIVER METASTASIS; LONGEVITY; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; METASTASIS; NEOPLASM; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATIENT CARE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREVALENCE; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; UNCERTAINTY;

HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84867906814     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14707330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2012.9005     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Pal SK, Hurria A. Impact of age, sex, and comorbidity on cancer therapy and disease progression. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4086-4093. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009. 27.0579. PMid:20644100.
2. Kohler BA, Ward E, McCarthy BJ, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2007, featuring tumors of the brain and other nervous system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 714-736. doi:10.1093/jnci/djr077. PMid:21454908.
3. Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, et al. Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 933-980. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70141-3. PMid:21958503.
4. 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. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.460. PMid:20424253.
5. Villanueva MT. Targeted therapies: smart tumor, smarter treatment. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012; 9: 127. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.4. PMid:22310739.
6. Ware RE, Hicks RJ. Doing more harm than good? Do systematic reviews of PET by health technology assessment agencies provide an appraisal of the evidence that is closer to the truth than the primary data supporting its use? J Nucl Med 2011; 52(Suppl 2): 64S-73S. doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.086611. PMid:22144557.
7. Greene FL, Sobin LH. The staging of cancer: a retrospective and prospective appraisal. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 180-190. doi:10.3322/CA.2008. 0001. PMid:18460593.
8. Hicks RJ, Borland J. Are health economics making us sick? J Nucl Med 2010; 51: 1665-1667. doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.079772. PMid:20956473.
9. Devbhandari MP, Bittar MN, Quennell P, et al. Are we achieving the current waiting time targets in lung cancer treatment? Result of a prospective study from a large United Kingdom teaching hospital. J Thorac Oncol 2007; 2: 590-592. doi:10.1097/JTO.0b013e318070ccf0. PMid:17607113.
10. Williams MV, Drinkwater KJ. Geographical variation in radiotherapy services across the UK in 2007 and the effect of deprivation. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2009; 21: 431-440. doi:10.1016/j.clon.2009.05.006.
11. Ramsey SD. How should we pay the piper when he's calling the tune? On the long-term affordability of cancer care in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 175-179. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.08.9805. PMid:17210936.
12. Chen Z, King W, Pearcey R, Kerba M, Mackillop WJ. The relationship between waiting time for radiotherapy and clinical outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Radiother Oncol 2008; 87: 3-16. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2007. 11.016. PMid:18160158.
13. Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001; 42(5 Suppl): 1S-93S. PMid:11483694.
14. Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med 2007; 48(Suppl 1): 78S-88S. PMid:17204723.
15. Valk PE, Pounds TR, Tesar RD, Hopkins DM, Haseman MK. Cost-effectiveness of PET imaging in clinical oncology. Nucl Med Biol 1996; 23: 737-743. doi:10.1016/0969-8051(96)00080-7. PMid:8940715.
16. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Bartholomeusz D, Ramshaw JE, Lin P. PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with head and neck cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1593-1600. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.053660. PMid:18794254.
17. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Kelley B, et al. PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1451-1457. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.051615. PMid:18703607.
18. Chatterton BE, Ho Shon I, Baldey A, et al. Positron emission tomography changes management and prognostic stratification in patients with oesophageal cancer: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; 36: 354-361. doi:10.1007/s00259-008-0959-y. PMid:18931839.
19. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Wong J, et al. Positron emission tomography changes management, improves prognostic stratification and is superior to gallium scintigraphy in patients with lowgrade lymphoma: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; 36: 347-353. doi:10.1007/s00259-008-0958-z. PMid:18931840.
20. Fulham MJ, Carter J, Baldey A, Hicks RJ, Ramshaw JE, Gibson M. The impact of PET-CT in suspected recurrent ovarian cancer: A prospective multi-centre study as part of the Australian PET Data Collection Project. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112: 462-468. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.027. PMid:19150121.
21. Hillner BE, Liu D, Coleman RE, et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): design and analysis plan. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 1901-1908. doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.043687. PMid:17942807.
22. McArthur GA, Puzanov I, Amaravadi R, et al. Marked, homogeneous, and early[18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography responses to vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 1628-1634. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.39.1938. PMid:22454415.
23. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 1031-1039. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.026. PMid:16616487.
24. DeGrado TR, Baldwin SW, Wang S, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of (18)F-labeled choline analogs as oncologic PET tracers. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 1805-1814. PMid:11752077.
25. Beauregard JM, Williams SG, Degrado TR, Roselt P, Hicks RJ. Pilot comparison of F-fluorocholine and F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT with conventional imaging in prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2010; 54: 325-332. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02178.x. PMid:20718912.
26. Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Ball DL, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography staging in radical radiotherapy candidates with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: powerful correlation with survival and high impact on treatment. Cancer 2001; 92: 886-895. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20010815)92: 4〈5886::AID-CNCR1397〉3.0.CO;2-V. PMid:11550162.
27. Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP, et al. (18)F-FDG PET provides high-impact and powerful prognostic stratification in staging newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 1596-1604. PMid:11696627.
28. Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP, et al. The utility of (18)F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non-small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: impact on management and prognostic stratification. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 1605-1613. PMid:11696628.
29. Ware RE, Matthews JP, Hicks RJ, et al. Usefulness of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with a residual structural abnormality after definitive treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 2004; 26: 1008-1017. doi:10.1002/hed.20097. PMid:15459925.
30. Duong CP, Demitriou H, Weih L, et al. Significant clinical impact and prognostic stratification provided by FDG-PET in the staging of oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33: 759-769. doi:10.1007/s00259-005- 0028-8. PMid:16470369.
31. Duong CP, Hicks RJ, Weih L, et al. FDG-PET status following chemoradiotherapy provides high management impact and powerful prognostic stratification in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33: 770-778. doi:10.1007/s00259-005-0040-z. PMid:16550384.
32. Connell CA, Corry J, Milner AD, et al. Clinical impact of, and prognostic stratification by, F-18 FDG PET/CT in head and neck mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2007; 29: 986-995. doi:10.1002/hed.20629. PMid:17563906.
33. Barber TW, Duong CP, Leong T, Bressel M, Drummond EG, Hicks RJ. 18F-FDG PET/CT has a high impact on patient management and provides powerful prognostic stratification in the primary staging of esophageal cancer: a prospective study with mature survival data. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 864-871. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111. 101568. PMid:22582047.
34. Gregory DL, Hicks RJ, Hogg A, et al. Effect of PET/CT on management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer: results of a prospective study with 5-year survival data. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 1007-1015. PMid:22677701.