Literature DB >> 14579081

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

Paul Verboom1, 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.   

Abstract

Currently, up to 50% of the operations in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are futile owing to the presence of locally advanced tumour or distant metastases. More accurate pre-operative staging is required in order to reduce the number of futile operations. The cost-effectiveness of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)FDG-PET) added to the conventional diagnostic work-up was studied in the PLUS study. Prior to invasive staging and/or thoracotomy, 188 patients with (suspected) NSCLC were randomly assigned to conventional work-up (CWU) and whole-body PET or to CWU alone. CWU was based on prevailing guidelines. Pre-operative staging was followed by 1 year of follow-up. Outcomes are expressed in the percentage of correctly staged patients and the associated costs. The cost price of PET varied between <euro>736 and <euro>1,588 depending on the (hospital) setting and the procurement of (18)FDG commercially or from on-site production. In the CWU group, 41% of the patients underwent a futile thoracotomy, whereas in the PET group 21% of the thoracotomies were considered futile ( P=0.003). The average costs per patient in the CWU group were <euro>9,573 and in the PET group, <euro>8,284. The major cost driver was the number of hospital days related to recovery from surgery. Sensitivity analysis on the cost and accuracy of PET showed that the results were robust, i.e. in favour of the PET group. The addition of PET to CWU prevented futile surgery in one out of five patients with suspected NSCLC. Despite the additional PET costs, the total costs were lower in the PET group, mainly due to a reduction in the number of futile operations. The additional use of PET in the staging of patients with NSCLC is feasible, safe and cost saving from a clinical and from an economic perspective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14579081     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-003-1199-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  16 in total

1.  A cost analysis of positron emission tomography.

Authors:  J S Keppler; P S Conti
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Costs of F-18-FDG PET: experience with a satellite concept.

Authors:  G Lottes; P Gorschlüter; T Kuwert; D Adam; O Schober
Journal:  Nuklearmedizin       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 1.379

3.  [Lung cancer in the Netherlands in the period 1989-1997: the epidemic is not over yet].

Authors:  M L Janssen-Heijnen; J A van Dijck; S Siesling; R M Schipper; R A Damhuis
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  2001-03-03

4.  Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography.

Authors:  R M Pieterman; J W van Putten; J J Meuzelaar; E L Mooyaart; W Vaalburg; G H Koëter; V Fidler; J Pruim; H J Groen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-27       Impact factor: 91.245

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

Authors:  M Dietlein; K Weber; A Gandjour; D Moka; P Theissen; K W Lauterbach; H Schicha
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  2000-10

6.  Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial.

Authors:  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; Paul Verboom; Johan C van Mourik; Pieter E Postmus; Maarten Boers; Gerrit J J Teule
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-04-20       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Solitary pulmonary nodules: accuracy and cost-effectiveness of sodium iodide FDG-PET using Australian data.

Authors:  C J Keith; K A Miles; M R Griffiths; D Wong; A G Pitman; R J Hicks
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2002-05-25       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  The impact of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron-emission tomography on the surgical staging of non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Hubert Vesselle; Jeffrey M Pugsley; Eric Vallières; Douglas E Wood
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.209

9.  Toward less futile surgery in non-small cell lung cancer? A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography.

Authors:  H van Tinteren; O S Hoekstra; E F Smit; P Verboom; M Boers
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2001-02

10.  Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma.

Authors:  S S Gambhir; C K Hoh; M E Phelps; I Madar; J Maddahi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  20 in total

1.  Bone scanning in lung cancer: evidence is not sufficient to justify routine bone scanning.

Authors:  Rachel E Benamore; James J Entwisle; Mick D Peake
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-24

2.  Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and its adverse impact on medicare beneficiary access to positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Guy Messer; Fred Stuvek; Jason DeSalvo
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 3.  Metabolic positron emission tomography imaging in cancer detection and therapy response.

Authors:  Aizhi Zhu; Daniel Lee; Hyunsuk Shim
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.929

4.  Occult lung infarction may induce false interpretation of 18F-FDG PET in primary staging of pulmonary malignancies.

Authors:  Ehab M Kamel; Thomas A McKee; Maria-Lucia Calcagni; Sabine Schmidt; Serge Markl; Sandra Castaldo; Angelika Bischof Delaloye
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2005-02-22       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 5.  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

6.  Cost-effectiveness of CT and PET-CT for determining the need for adjuvant neck dissection in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Authors:  D J Sher; R B Tishler; D Annino; R S Punglia
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 7.  Role and cost effectiveness of PET/CT in management of patients with cancer.

Authors:  Muhammad Wasif Saif; Ifigenia Tzannou; Nektaria Makrilia; Kostas Syrigos
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2010-06

8.  Normal Positron Emission Tomography-Computerized Tomogram in a Patient with Apparent Mesenteric Panniculitis: Biopsy Is Still the Answer.

Authors:  Eli D Ehrenpreis; Archana S Rao; Robert Aki; Heather Brown; Thomas Pae; Ian Boiskin
Journal:  Case Rep Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-04-29

Review 9.  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

Review 10.  PET/CT in oncology: for which tumours is it the reference standard?

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.