Health technology assessment and cancer imaging: Who should be setting the agenda?

Cancer Imaging

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 49-51

  Hicks, Rodney J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873357841     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14707330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2004.0009     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Sackett DA, Rosenberg WM, Muir Gray JD, Haynes JB, Richardson WS. Evidenced based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Br Med J 1996; 312: 71-2.
2. Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DHS, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001; 42(Suppl 5): 1S-93S.
3. 18FDG PET in candidates for radiation therapy. Is it important and how do we validate its impact? J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 30-2.
4. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. J Am Med Assoc 1992; 268: 2420-5.
5. Kalff V, Hicks RJ, MacManus MP et al. The clinical impact of F-18 FDG positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 111-8.
6. MacManus MP, Hicks RJ, Ball DL et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography staging in radical radiotherapy candidates with nonsmall cell lung cancer: powerful correlation with survival and high impact on treatment. Cancer 2001; 92: 886-95.
7. Valk PE. Controversies - against: do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? Eur J Nucl Med 2004; 31: 132-5.