Alexander Heinzel1, Dirk Müller1, Sareh Said Yekta-Michael1, Garry Ceccon1, Karl-Josef Langen1, Felix M Mottaghy1, Martin Wiesmann1, Martin Kocher1, Elke Hattingen1, Norbert Galldiks1. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany; Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; Department of Conservative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany; Department of Neurology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; Institute for Neuroscience and Medicine, Research Center Juelich, Juelich, Germany; Department of Neuroradiology University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO), Universities of Cologne and Bonn, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional MRI is the standard method to diagnose recurrence of brain metastases after radiation. However, following radiation therapy, reactive transient blood-brain barrier alterations with consecutive contrast enhancement can mimic brain metastasis recurrence. Recent studies have suggested that O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) PET improves the correct differentiation of brain metastasis recurrence from radiation injury. Based on published evidence and clinical expert opinion, we analyzed effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of FET PET in addition to MRI compared with MRI alone for the diagnosis of recurrent brain metastases. METHODS: A decision-tree model was designed to compare the 2 diagnostic strategies from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) system. Effectiveness was defined as correct diagnosis of recurrent brain metastasis and was compared between FET PET with MRI and MRI alone. Costs were calculated for a baseline scenario and for a more expensive scenario. Robustness of the results was tested using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with MRI alone, FET PET in combination with MRI increases the rate of correct diagnoses by 42% (number needed to diagnose of 3) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2821 (baseline scenario) and €4014 (more expensive scenario) per correct diagnosis. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The model suggests that the additional use of FET PET with conventional MRI for the diagnosis of recurrent brain metastases may be cost-effective. Integration of FET PET has the potential to avoid overtreatment with corresponding costs as well as unnecessary side effects.
BACKGROUND: Conventional MRI is the standard method to diagnose recurrence of brain metastases after radiation. However, following radiation therapy, reactive transient blood-brain barrier alterations with consecutive contrast enhancement can mimic brain metastasis recurrence. Recent studies have suggested that O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) PET improves the correct differentiation of brain metastasis recurrence from radiation injury. Based on published evidence and clinical expert opinion, we analyzed effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of FET PET in addition to MRI compared with MRI alone for the diagnosis of recurrent brain metastases. METHODS: A decision-tree model was designed to compare the 2 diagnostic strategies from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) system. Effectiveness was defined as correct diagnosis of recurrent brain metastasis and was compared between FET PET with MRI and MRI alone. Costs were calculated for a baseline scenario and for a more expensive scenario. Robustness of the results was tested using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with MRI alone, FET PET in combination with MRI increases the rate of correct diagnoses by 42% (number needed to diagnose of 3) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2821 (baseline scenario) and €4014 (more expensive scenario) per correct diagnosis. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The model suggests that the additional use of FET PET with conventional MRI for the diagnosis of recurrent brain metastases may be cost-effective. Integration of FET PET has the potential to avoid overtreatment with corresponding costs as well as unnecessary side effects.
Authors: Nancy U Lin; Eudocia Q Lee; Hidefumi Aoyama; Igor J Barani; Daniel P Barboriak; Brigitta G Baumert; Martin Bendszus; Paul D Brown; D Ross Camidge; Susan M Chang; Janet Dancey; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Laurie E Gaspar; Gordon J Harris; F Stephen Hodi; Steven N Kalkanis; Mark E Linskey; David R Macdonald; Kim Margolin; Minesh P Mehta; David Schiff; Riccardo Soffietti; John H Suh; Martin J van den Bent; Michael A Vogelbaum; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Thomas Linsenmann; Camelia Maria Monoranu; Samuel Samnick; Andreas K Buck; Christina Bluemel; Johannes Czernin; Almuth F Kessler; Gyoergy A Homola; Ralf-Ingo Ernestus; Mario Löhr; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Martin Kocher; Andrea Wittig; Marc Dieter Piroth; Harald Treuer; Heinrich Seegenschmiedt; Maximilian Ruge; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Changhong Yu; Andrew E Sloan; Jaime Vengoechea; Meihua Wang; James J Dignam; Michael A Vogelbaum; Paul W Sperduto; Minesh P Mehta; Mitchell Machtay; Michael W Kattan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Karl-Josef Langen; Nathalie L Albert; Marc Chamberlain; Riccardo Soffietti; Michelle M Kim; Ian Law; Emilie Le Rhun; Susan Chang; Julian Schwarting; Stephanie E Combs; Matthias Preusser; Peter Forsyth; Whitney Pope; Michael Weller; Jörg C Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Francesco Cicone; Luciano Carideo; Claudia Scaringi; Andrea Romano; Marcelo Mamede; Annalisa Papa; Anna Tofani; Giuseppe Lucio Cascini; Alessandro Bozzao; Francesco Scopinaro; Giuseppe Minniti Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Wynton B Overcast; Korbin M Davis; Chang Y Ho; Gary D Hutchins; Mark A Green; Brian D Graner; Michael C Veronesi Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Balamurugan A Vellayappan; Tresa McGranahan; Jerome Graber; Lynne Taylor; Vyshak Venur; Richard Ellenbogen; Andrew E Sloan; Kristin J Redmond; Matthew Foote; Samuel T Chao; John H Suh; Eric L Chang; Arjun Sahgal; Simon S Lo Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2021-06-07
Authors: Giorgio Treglia; Barbara Muoio; Gianluca Trevisi; Maria Vittoria Mattoli; Domenico Albano; Francesco Bertagna; Luca Giovanella Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 5.923