Literature DB >> 11105815

Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: priority for a PET-based strategy after nodal-negative CT results.

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

Abstract

Decision analysis is used here to establish the most cost-effective strategy for management of potentially operable non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). The strategies compared were conventional staging (strategy A), dedicated systems of positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in patients with normal-sized (strategy B) or in patients with enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes (part of strategy C), and FDG-PET followed by exclusion from surgical procedures when both computed tomography (CT) and PET were positive for mediastinal lymph nodes (strategy D) or when PET alone was positive (strategy E). Based on published data, the sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET were estimated at 0.74 and 0.96 for detecting metastasis in normal-sized mediastinal lymph nodes, and at 0.95 and 0.76 when these lymph nodes were enlarged. The calculated probability of up-staging to M1 by using PET was 0.05. The costs quoted correspond to the cost reimbursed in 1999 by the public health provider in Germany. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of strategy B was much more favourable (143 EUR/LYS; LYS = life year saved) than the ICER of strategy C (36,667 EUR/LYS). In strategy B, the use of PET did not raise the overall costs because the costs of PET were almost balanced by a better selection of patients for beneficial cancer resection. The exclusion from biopsy confirmation in strategies D and E led to cost savings that did not justify the expected reduction in life expectancy. In sensitivity analyses, the ICERs of strategy B were robust to the pretest likelihood of N2/N3, to penalized test parameters of PET and to reimbursement of PET. However, the ICER of strategy B would be raised to 28,000 EUR/LYS through use of thoracic PET without whole-body scanning. To conclude, the implementation of whole-body PET with a full ring of detectors in the preoperative staging of patients with NSCLC and normal-sized lymph nodes is clearly cost-effective. However, patients with nodal-positive PET results should not be excluded from biopsy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11105815     DOI: 10.1007/s002590000376

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


  19 in total

Review 1.  18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and the staging of early lung cancer.

Authors:  G Laking; P Price
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  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 3.  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

4.  PET/CT for staging lung cancer: costly or cost-saving?

Authors:  Andreas K Buck; Ken Herrmann; Jonas Schreyögg
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-03-26       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Lung cancer staging: the value of PET depends on the clinical setting.

Authors:  Frank C Detterbeck; Santiago Figueroa Almanzar
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Preoperative staging of lung cancer with PET/CT: cost-effectiveness evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rikke Søgaard; Barbara Malene B Fischer; Jann Mortensen; Liselotte Højgaard; Ulrik Lassen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  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

8.  Management and costs of treating lung cancer patients in a university hospital.

Authors:  Konstantin J Dedes; Thomas D Szucs; Stephan Bodis; Markus Joerger; Adam Lowy; Erich W Russi; Hans C Steinert; Walter Weder; Rolf A Stahel
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  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

10.  Positron emission tomography in the management of lung cancer.

Authors:  Vahid Reza Dabbagh Kakhki
Journal:  Ann Thorac Med       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.219

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.