Literature DB >> 17942807

The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): design and analysis plan.

Bruce E Hillner1, Dawei Liu, R Edward Coleman, Anthony F Shields, Ilana F Gareen, Lucy Hanna, Sharon Hartson Stine, Barry A Siegel.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has provided a mechanism for expanded coverage of selected promising technologies under its "coverage with evidence development (CED)" policy. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) was designed to address the CED requirements for collection of clinical and demographic data to allow for CMS coverage of PET for previously noncovered cancer types and indications. The NOPR opened in May 2006. This report reviews the NOPR's data collection and analysis plan.
METHODS: NOPR is a nationwide prospective internet-based registry. All PET facilities that are participating providers in the Medicare program may enroll in NOPR. The PET facility is responsible for collecting and entering patient data into the NOPR database through a Web application at: (http://www.cancerPETregistry.org/). Data are collected from the requesting physician on Pre-PET and Post-PET forms. The primary research goal is to assess the effect of PET on referring physicians' plans of intended patient management across the spectrum of expanded cancer indications (diagnosis, staging, restaging, suspected recurrence, and treatment monitoring). The NOPR investigators will have access to data only on cases in which both the patient and the referring physician have consented to allow their data to be used for research. Data will be analyzed and compared in aggregate for all cancers by category (e.g., staging) and then for specific high-impact types and indications (e.g., staging of pancreatic cancer) when 200 patients have been accrued to a specific combination or after the NOPR has been operational for 1 y.
CONCLUSION: The NOPR will allow an accurate assessment of the impact of PET on intended patient management across a wide spectrum of cancer indications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17942807     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.107.043687

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  28 in total

Review 1.  Ethical issues in using data from quality management programs.

Authors:  David R Nerenz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  A review of imaging agent development.

Authors:  Eric D Agdeppa; Mary E Spilker
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  Vertebral and femoral bone mineral density and bone strength in prostate cancer patients assessed in phantomless PET/CT examinations.

Authors:  Benedikt J Schwaiger; David L Kopperdahl; Lorenzo Nardo; Luca Facchetti; Alexandra S Gersing; Jan Neumann; Kwang J Lee; Tony M Keaveny; Thomas M Link
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 4.398

4.  Impact on Patient Management of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Used for Cancer Diagnosis: Analysis of Data From the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Rathan M Subramaniam; Anthony F Shields; Archana Sachedina; Lucy Hanna; Fenghai Duan; Barry A Siegel; Bruce E Hillner
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2016-07-08

5.  PET Imaging of Prostate Cancer Using C-Acetate.

Authors:  Johannes Czernin; Matthias R Benz; Martin S Allen-Auerbach
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2009-04

6.  Practice-based evidence for the clinical benefit of PET/CT-results of the first oncologic PET/CT registry in Germany.

Authors:  Christina Pfannenberg; Brigitte Gueckel; Lisa Wang; Sergios Gatidis; Susann-Cathrin Olthof; Werner Vach; Matthias Reimold; Christian la Fougere; Konstantin Nikolaou; Peter Martus
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Hospice Admission and Survival After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Ilana F Gareen; Bruce E Hillner; Lucy Hanna; Rajesh Makineni; Fenghai Duan; Anthony F Shields; Rathan M Subramaniam; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  A flexible, multifaceted approach is needed in health technology assessment of PET.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2014-07-21       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 9.  Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems.

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Christopher J McCabe; Devidas Menon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  PET/MRI: a different spin from under the rim.

Authors:  Rodney J Hicks; Eddie W F Lau
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.