Ilana F Gareen1,2, Bruce E Hillner3, Lucy Hanna2, Rajesh Makineni2, Fenghai Duan2,4, Anthony F Shields5, Rathan M Subramaniam6, Barry A Siegel7. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island igareen@stat.brown.edu. 2. Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 3. Department of Internal Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. 5. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. 6. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, and Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; and. 7. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology and the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
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.
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 lungpatients. 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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