Literature DB >> 11083532

Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of solitary pulmonary nodules: a decision analysis based on cost reimbursement in Germany.

M Dietlein1, K Weber, A Gandjour, D Moka, P Theissen, K W Lauterbach, H Schicha.   

Abstract

Management of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) of up to 3 cm was modelled on decision analysis comparing "wait and watch", transthoracic needle biopsy (TNB), exploratory surgery and full-ring dedicated positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorine-18 2-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for the main risk group, a cohort of 62-year-old men, using first "wait and watch" and second exploratory surgery as the baseline strategy. Based on published data, the sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET were estimated at 0.95 and 0.80 for detecting malignancy in SPNs and at 0.74 and 0.96 for detecting metastasis in normal-sized mediastinal lymph nodes. The costs quoted correspond to reimbursement in 1999 by the public health provider in Germany. Decision analysis modelling indicates the potential cost-effectiveness of the FDG-PET strategy for management of SPNs. Taking watchful waiting as the low-cost baseline strategy, the ICER of PET [3218 euros (EUR) per life year saved] was more favourable than that of exploratory surgery (4210 EUR/year) or that of TNB (6120 EUR/year). Changing the baseline strategy to exploratory surgery, the use of PET led to cost savings and additional life expectancy. This constellation was described by a negative ICER of -6912 EUR/year. The PET algorithm was cost-effective for risk and non-risk patients. However, the ICER of PET as the preferred strategy was sensitive to a hypothetical deterioration of any PET parameters by more than 0.07. To transfer the diagnostic efficacy from controlled studies to the routine user and to maintain the cost-effectiveness of this technology, obligatory protocols for data acquisitions would need to be defined. If the prevalence of SPNs is estimated at the USA level (52 per 100,000 individuals) and assuming that multiple strategies without PET are the norm, the overall costs of a newly implemented PET algorithm would be limited to far less than one EUR per member of the public health provider in Germany.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11083532     DOI: 10.1007/s002590000324

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0340-6997


  10 in total

1.  Requirements for clinical PET: comparisons within Europe.

Authors:  Michael Bedford; Michael N Maisey
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Healthcare costs for new technologies.

Authors:  Mathias Goyen; Jörg F Debatin
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  An extension of the real option approach to the evaluation of health care technologies: the case of positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Paolo Pertile
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2009-01-18

Review 4.  The use and misuse of positron emission tomography in lung cancer evaluation.

Authors:  Ching-Fei Chang; Afshin Rashtian; Michael K Gould
Journal:  Clin Chest Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.878

5.  Differential diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules based on 99mTc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC scintigraphy: the effect of tumour size on the optimal method of image assessment.

Authors:  Anna Płachcińska; Renata Mikołajczak; Józef Kozak; Katarzyna Rzeszutek; Jacek Kuśmierek
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-05-16       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  A systematic review of PET and PET/CT in oncology: a way to personalize cancer treatment in a cost-effective manner?

Authors:  Astrid Langer
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in staging non-small cell lung cancer: the PLUS study.

Authors:  Paul Verboom; Harm van Tinteren; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Jan H A M van den Bergh; Ad J M Schreurs; Roland A L M Stallaert; Piet C M van Velthoven; Emile F I Comans; Fred W Diepenhorst; Johan C van Mourik; Pieter E Postmus; Maarten Boers; Els W M Grijseels; Gerrit J J Teule; Carin A Uyl-de Groot
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-05-29       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Validation of two models to estimate the probability of malignancy in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  E M Schultz; G D Sanders; P R Trotter; E F Patz; G A Silvestri; D K Owens; M K Gould
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2007-10-26       Impact factor: 9.139

9.  Cancer imaging: is it cost-effective?

Authors:  K A Miles
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2004-04-06       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 10.  Solitary pulmonary nodule and (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Part 2: accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and current recommendations.

Authors:  Marcos Pretto Mosmann; Marcelle Alves Borba; Francisco Pires Negromonte de Macedo; Adriano de Araujo Lima Liguori; Arthur Villarim Neto; Kenio Costa de Lima
Journal:  Radiol Bras       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.