UNLABELLED: Under Medicare's Coverage with Evidence Development policy, PET using (18)F-sodium fluoride (NaF PET) to identify osseous metastasis became a covered service if prospective registry data were collected. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) developed a NaF PET registry built on the foundation of its prior registry for PET with (18)F-FDG. Men with prostate cancer represented 72% of the cases. METHODS: Prospective data before and after NaF PET were collected from referring and interpreting physicians. The analysis set consisted of consenting men age 65 y or older with prostate cancer undergoing NaF PET for initial staging (IS, n = 1,024), suspected first osseous metastasis (FOM, n = 1,997), or suspected progression of osseous metastasis (POM, n = 510). RESULTS: Referring physicians indicated that if NaF PET were not available, other advanced imaging (body CT, MR imaging, or (18)F-FDG PET) would be their plan in about half of the cases. After NaF PET, the postimaging plan was revised to treatment in 77%, 52%, and 71% for IS, FOM, and POM, respectively. When intended management was classified as either treatment or nontreatment, the overall change in intended management ranged from 44% to 52% and from 12% to 16% if no effect was assumed for those cases with pre-PET plans for other imaging (imaging-adjusted impact). Interpreting physicians recorded definite findings of bone metastasis in 14%, 29%, and 76% for IS, FOM, and POM, respectively. The intended care patterns varied widely across indication and scan abnormality category combinations. CONCLUSION: NaF PET has high overall impact, principally related to its effect on replacing intended use of other advanced imaging. Its imaging-adjusted impact was similar to that observed with (18)F-FDG PET for restaging or suspected recurrence in other cancer types.
UNLABELLED: Under Medicare's Coverage with Evidence Development policy, PET using (18)F-sodium fluoride (NaF PET) to identify osseous metastasis became a covered service if prospective registry data were collected. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) developed a NaF PET registry built on the foundation of its prior registry for PET with (18)F-FDG. Men with prostate cancer represented 72% of the cases. METHODS: Prospective data before and after NaF PET were collected from referring and interpreting physicians. The analysis set consisted of consenting men age 65 y or older with prostate cancer undergoing NaF PET for initial staging (IS, n = 1,024), suspected first osseous metastasis (FOM, n = 1,997), or suspected progression of osseous metastasis (POM, n = 510). RESULTS: Referring physicians indicated that if NaF PET were not available, other advanced imaging (body CT, MR imaging, or (18)F-FDG PET) would be their plan in about half of the cases. After NaF PET, the postimaging plan was revised to treatment in 77%, 52%, and 71% for IS, FOM, and POM, respectively. When intended management was classified as either treatment or nontreatment, the overall change in intended management ranged from 44% to 52% and from 12% to 16% if no effect was assumed for those cases with pre-PET plans for other imaging (imaging-adjusted impact). Interpreting physicians recorded definite findings of bone metastasis in 14%, 29%, and 76% for IS, FOM, and POM, respectively. The intended care patterns varied widely across indication and scan abnormality category combinations. CONCLUSION:NaF PET has high overall impact, principally related to its effect on replacing intended use of other advanced imaging. Its imaging-adjusted impact was similar to that observed with (18)F-FDG PET for restaging or suspected recurrence in other cancer types.
Entities:
Keywords:
PET; bone scintigraphy; prospective studies; prostate cancer; registry
Authors: Randi F Fonager; Helle D Zacho; Niels C Langkilde; Joan Fledelius; June A Ejlersen; Christian Haarmark; Helle W Hendel; Mine Benedicte Lange; Mads R Jochumsen; Jesper C Mortensen; Lars J Petersen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-01
Authors: M Beheshti; F M Mottaghy; F Paycha; F F F Behrendt; T Van den Wyngaert; I Fogelman; K Strobel; M Celli; S Fanti; F Giammarile; B Krause; W Langsteger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Katherine A Zukotynski; Chun K Kim; Victor H Gerbaudo; Jon Hainer; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Philip Kantoff; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Steven Seltzer; Christopher J Sweeney Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-12-15
Authors: Ulka N Vaishampayan; Omid S Tehrani; Jawana M Lawhorn-Crews; Lance K Heilbrun; Kimberlee Dobson; Daryn Smith; Brenda Dickow; Anthony F Shields Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.488