Literature DB >> 29284672

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

Ilana F Gareen1,2, Bruce E Hillner3, Lucy Hanna2, Rajesh Makineni2, Fenghai Duan2,4, Anthony F Shields5, Rathan M Subramaniam6, Barry A Siegel7.   

Abstract

We have previously reported that PET using 18F-fluoride (NaF PET) for assessment of osseous metastatic disease was associated with substantial changes in intended management in Medicare beneficiaries participating in the National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR). Here, we use Medicare administrative data to examine the association between NaF PET results and hospice claims within 180 d and 1-y survival.
Methods: We classified NOPR NaF PET results linked to Medicare claims by imaging indication (initial staging [IS]; detection of suspected first osseous metastasis [FOM]; suspected progression of osseous metastasis [POM]; or treatment monitoring [TM]) and type of cancer (prostate, lung, breast, or other). Results were classified as definitely positive scan findings versus probably positive scan findings versus negative scan findings for osseous metastasis for IS and FOM; more extensive disease versus no change or less extensive disease for POM; and worse prognosis versus no change or better prognosis for TM, based on the postscan assessment. Our study included 21,167 scans obtained from 2011 to 2014 of consenting NOPR participants aged 65 y or older.
Results: The relative risk of hospice claims within 180 d of a NaF PET scan was 2.0-7.5 times higher for patients with evidence of new or progressing osseous metastasis than for those without, depending on indication and cancer type (all P < 0.008). The percentage difference in hospice claims for those with a finding of new or more advanced osseous disease ranged from 3.9% for IS prostate patients to 28% for FOM lung patients. Six-month survival was also associated with evidence of new or increased osseous disease; risk of death was 1.8-5.1 times as likely (all P ≤ 0.0001), with percentage differences of approximately 30% comparing positive and negative scans in patients with lung cancer imaged for IS or FOM.
Conclusion: Our analyses demonstrated that NaF PET scan results are highly associated with subsequent hospice claims and, ultimately, with patient survival. NaF PET provides important information on the presence of osseous metastasis and prognosis to assist patients and their physicians when making decisions on whether to select palliative care and transition to hospice or whether to continue treatment.
© 2018 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Entities:  

Keywords:  18F-fluoride PET; bone metastasis; insurance claims linkage; lung cancer; palliative care; prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29284672      PMCID: PMC6424219          DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.205120

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


  24 in total

1.  The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development.

Authors:  Matthew J Lindsay; Barry A Siegel; Sean R Tunis; Bruce E Hillner; Anthony F Shields; Brian P Carey; R Edward Coleman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Registries that show efficacy: good, but not good enough.

Authors:  Mark N Levine; Jim A Julian
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-10-14       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Medical isotope shortage reaches crisis level.

Authors:  Paula Gould
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Hospice use and high-intensity care in men dying of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jonathan Bergman; Christopher S Saigal; Karl A Lorenz; Janet Hanley; David C Miller; John L Gore; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-10-11

5.  Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/CT on intended management: findings of the national oncologic PET registry.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Anthony F Shields; Dawei Liu; Ilana F Gareen; Ed Hunt; R Edward Coleman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-11-07       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 6.  Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer.

Authors:  Frederick D Grant; Frederic H Fahey; Alan B Packard; Royal T Davis; Abass Alavi; S Ted Treves
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-12-12       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  The National Oncologic PET Registry: lessons learned for coverage with evidence development.

Authors:  Sean Tunis; Danielle Whicher
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Dawei Liu; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-03-24       Impact factor: 44.544

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

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Dawei Liu; R Edward Coleman; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  The impact of positron emission tomography (PET) on expected management during cancer treatment: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Anthony F Shields; Dawei Liu; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  18F-NaF/223RaCl2 theranostics in metastatic prostate cancer: treatment response assessment and prediction of outcome.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar; Patrick M Colletti
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Prospective Study of Serial 18F-FDG PET and 18F-Fluoride PET to Predict Time to Skeletal-Related Events, Time to Progression, and Survival in Patients with Bone-Dominant Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Lanell M Peterson; Janet O'Sullivan; Qian Vicky Wu; Alena Novakova-Jiresova; Isaac Jenkins; Jean H Lee; Andrew Shields; Susan Montgomery; Hannah M Linden; Julie Gralow; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Mark Muzi; Paul Kinahan; David Mankoff; Jennifer M Specht
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Treatment Response Assessment of Skeletal Metastases in Prostate Cancer with 18F-NaF PET/CT.

Authors:  Erik M Velez; Bhushan Desai; Hossein Jadvar
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-06-24

4.  Incidence, prognostic factors, and a nomogram of lung cancer with bone metastasis at initial diagnosis: a population-based study.

Authors:  Xuan-Qi Zheng; Jin-Feng Huang; Jia-Liang Lin; Liang Chen; Ting-Ting Zhou; Dong Chen; Dong-Dong Lin; Jian-Fei Shen; Ai-Min Wu
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2019-08

5.  Comparison of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT with fluoride PET/CT for detection of bone metastatic disease in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Naresh Regula; Vasileios Kostaras; Silvia Johansson; Carlos Trampal; Elin Lindström; Mark Lubberink; Victor Iyer; Irina Velikyan; Jens Sörensen
Journal:  Eur J Hybrid Imaging       Date:  2022-03-01
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.