Christina Pfannenberg1, Brigitte Gueckel2, Lisa Wang3, Sergios Gatidis2, Susann-Cathrin Olthof2, Werner Vach4, Matthias Reimold5, Christian la Fougere5, Konstantin Nikolaou2, Peter Martus3. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. christina.pfannenberg@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Institute of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of PET/CT on clinical management of cancer patients based on a prospective data registry. The study was developed to inform consultations with public health insurances on PET/CT coverage. METHODS: We evaluated a prospective patient cohort having a clinically indicated PET/CT at a single German University Center from April 2013 to August 2016. The registry collected questionnaire data from requesting physicians on intended patient management before and after PET/CT. A total of 4,504 patients with 5,939 PET/CT examinations were enrolled in the registry, resulting in evaluable data from 3,724 patients receiving 4,754 scans. The impact of PET/CT on patient management was assessed across 22 tumor types, for different indications (diagnosis, staging, suspected recurrence) and different categories of management including treatment (curative or palliative) and non-treatment (watchful waiting, additional imaging, invasive tests). RESULTS: The most frequent PET/CT indication was tumor staging (59.7%). Melanoma, lung cancer, lymphoma, neuroendocrine tumor and prostate cancer accounted for 70% of cases. Overall, the use of PET/CT resulted in a 37.1% change of clinical management (95% CI, 35.7-38.5), most frequently (30.6%) from an intended non-treatment strategy before PET/CT to active treatment after PET/CT. The frequency of changes ranged from 28.3% for head and neck cancers up to 46.0% for melanomas. The impact of PET/CT was greatest in reducing demands for additional imaging which decreased from 66.1% before PET/CT to 6.1% after PET/CT. Pre-PET/CT planned invasive tests could be avoided in 72.7% of cases. The treatment goal changed after PET/CT in 21.7% of cases, in twice as many cases from curative to palliative therapy than vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: The data of this large prospective registry confirm that physicians often change their intended management on the basis of PET/CT by initiating treatment and reducing additional imaging as well as invasive tests. This applies to various cancer types and indications.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of PET/CT on clinical management of cancerpatients based on a prospective data registry. The study was developed to inform consultations with public health insurances on PET/CT coverage. METHODS: We evaluated a prospective patient cohort having a clinically indicated PET/CT at a single German University Center from April 2013 to August 2016. The registry collected questionnaire data from requesting physicians on intended patient management before and after PET/CT. A total of 4,504 patients with 5,939 PET/CT examinations were enrolled in the registry, resulting in evaluable data from 3,724 patients receiving 4,754 scans. The impact of PET/CT on patient management was assessed across 22 tumor types, for different indications (diagnosis, staging, suspected recurrence) and different categories of management including treatment (curative or palliative) and non-treatment (watchful waiting, additional imaging, invasive tests). RESULTS: The most frequent PET/CT indication was tumor staging (59.7%). Melanoma, lung cancer, lymphoma, neuroendocrine tumor and prostate cancer accounted for 70% of cases. Overall, the use of PET/CT resulted in a 37.1% change of clinical management (95% CI, 35.7-38.5), most frequently (30.6%) from an intended non-treatment strategy before PET/CT to active treatment after PET/CT. The frequency of changes ranged from 28.3% for head and neck cancers up to 46.0% for melanomas. The impact of PET/CT was greatest in reducing demands for additional imaging which decreased from 66.1% before PET/CT to 6.1% after PET/CT. Pre-PET/CT planned invasive tests could be avoided in 72.7% of cases. The treatment goal changed after PET/CT in 21.7% of cases, in twice as many cases from curative to palliative therapy than vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: The data of this large prospective registry confirm that physicians often change their intended management on the basis of PET/CT by initiating treatment and reducing additional imaging as well as invasive tests. This applies to various cancer types and indications.
Authors: Andrea Forschner; Susann-Cathrin Olthof; Brigitte Gückel; Peter Martus; Werner Vach; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Ulrike Keim; Thomas Kurt Eigentler; Claus Garbe; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Johannes Czernin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Jeannine Gartmann; Anthony P Heaney; Andrew E Hendifar; Joseph R Pisegna; J Randolph Hecht; Edward M Wolin; Roger Slavik; Pawan Gupta; Andrew Quon; Christiaan Schiepers; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Max Lonneux; Marc Hamoir; Hervé Reychler; Philippe Maingon; Christian Duvillard; Gilles Calais; Boumédiène Bridji; Laurence Digue; Michel Toubeau; Vincent Grégoire Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G J Herder; H Van Tinteren; E F Comans; O S Hoekstra; G J Teule; P E Postmus; U Joshi; E F Smit Journal: Thorax Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Christian Philipp Reinert; Julia Sekler; Christian la Fougère; Christina Pfannenberg; Sergios Gatidis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sergios Gatidis; Tobias Hepp; Marcel Früh; Christian La Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Pfannenberg; Bernhard Schölkopf; Thomas Küstner; Clemens Cyran; Daniel Rubin Journal: Sci Data Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 8.501
Authors: Ken Kudura; Florentia Dimitriou; Daniela Mihic-Probst; Urs J Muehlematter; Tim Kutzker; Lucas Basler; Robert Förster; Reinhard Dummer; Joanna Mangana; Lars Husmann; Irene A Burger; Michael Christoph Kreissl Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-15
Authors: Lars Husmann; Nadia Eberhard; Martin W Huellner; Bruno Ledergerber; Anna Mueller; Hannes Gruenig; Michael Messerli; Carlos-A Mestres; Zoran Rancic; Alexander Zimmermann; Barbara Hasse Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lena Sophie Kiefer; Julia Sekler; Brigitte Gückel; Mareen Sarah Kraus; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Michael Bitzer; Sergios Gatidis; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: BJR Open Date: 2021-07-05
Authors: Cornelia Brendle; Caroline Maier; Benjamin Bender; Jens Schittenhelm; Frank Paulsen; Mirjam Renovanz; Constantin Roder; Salvador Castaneda-Vega; Ghazaleh Tabatabai; Ulrike Ernemann; Christian la Fougère Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 10.057