Intended Versus Inferred Treatment After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry

We have previously reported that PET with 18F-fluoride (NaF PET) for assessment of osseous metastatic disease led to changes in intended management in a substantial fraction of patients with prostate or other types of cancer participating in the National Oncologic PET Registry. This study was performed to assess the concordance of intended patient management after NaF PET and inferred management based on analysis of Medicare claims. Methods: We analyzed linked post–NaF PET data of consenting National Oncologic PET Registry participants age 65 y or older from 2011 to 2014 and their corresponding Medicare claims. Post–NaF PET treatment plans, including combinations of 2 modes of therapy, were assessed for their concordance with clinical actions inferred from Medicare claims. NaF PET studies were stratified by indication (initial staging [IS] or suspected first osseous metastasis [FOM]) and cancer type (prostate, lung, or other cancers). Agreement was assessed between post–NaF PET intended management plans for treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, or systemic therapy) within 90 d for lung and 180 d for prostate or other cancers, and for watching (the absence of treatment claims for ≥60 d) as compared with claims-inferred care. Results: Actions after 9,898 scans were assessed. After NaF PET for IS, there was claims agreement for planned surgery in 76.0% (19/25) lung, 75.4% (98/130) other cancers, and 58.9% (298/506) prostate cancer. Claims confirmed chemotherapy plans after NaF PET done for IS or FOM in 81.0% and 73.5% for lung cancer (n = 148 and 136) and 69.4% and 67.5% for other cancers (n = 111 and 228). For radiotherapy plans, agreement ranged from 80.0% to 84.4% after IS and 68.4% to 74.0% for suspected FOM. Concordance was greatest for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (86.0%, n = 308) alone or combined with radiotherapy in prostate cancer IS (80.8%, n = 517). In prostate FOM, the concordance across all treatment plans was lower if the patients had ADT claims within 180 d before NaF PET. Agreement with nontreatment plans was high for FOM (87.2% in other cancers and 78.6% if no prior ADT in prostate) and low after IS (40.7%–62.5%). Conclusion: Concordance of post–NaF PET plans and claims was substantial and higher overall for IS than for FOM.

[1]  Michael J Fulham,et al.  PET Changes Management and Improves Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  P. Choyke,et al.  Prospective Study Evaluating Na18F PET/CT in Predicting Clinical Outcomes and Survival in Advanced Prostate Cancer , 2016, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  Vinay Prasad,et al.  Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused? , 2017, BMC Medicine.

[4]  U. Tateishi,et al.  A meta-analysis of 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography for assessment of metastatic bone tumor , 2010, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[5]  David C. Miller,et al.  Hospice use and high-intensity care in men dying of prostate cancer. , 2011, Archives of internal medicine.

[6]  R. Coleman,et al.  Relationship Between Cancer Type and Impact of PET and PET/CT on Intended Management: Findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  Barry A. Siegel,et al.  The impact of positron emission tomography (PET) on expected management during cancer treatment , 2009, Cancer.

[8]  P. Gould Medical isotope shortage reaches crisis level , 2009, Nature.

[9]  Barry A Siegel,et al.  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. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Li Zhang,et al.  Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Factors in Bone Metastases from Lung Cancer , 2017, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[11]  L. Jacques,et al.  Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (NaF-18) to Identify Bone Metastasis of Cancer (CAG-00065R) , 2010 .

[12]  H. Sørensen,et al.  Survival after bone metastasis by primary cancer type: a Danish population-based cohort study , 2017, BMJ Open.

[13]  R. Coleman,et al.  The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): Design and Analysis Plan , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  S Ted Treves,et al.  Skeletal PET with 18F-Fluoride: Applying New Technology to an Old Tracer* , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  R. Simes,et al.  Using patient management as a surrogate for patient health outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[16]  K. Pritchard,et al.  F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography-computed tomography to diagnose recurrent cancer , 2015 .

[17]  R. Coleman,et al.  The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  F. Kahl,et al.  3D skeletal uptake of 18F sodium fluoride in PET/CT images is associated with overall survival in patients with prostate cancer , 2017, EJNMMI Research.

[19]  R. Coleman,et al.  Impact of 18F-Fluoride PET in Patients with Known Prostate Cancer: Initial Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  A. Scott,et al.  PET Changes Management and Improves Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  Quan-Yong Luo,et al.  Performance of 18F-Fluoride PET or PET/CT for the Detection of Bone Metastases: A Meta-analysis , 2015, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[22]  Jens Eickhoff,et al.  Quantitative Assessment of Early [18F]Sodium Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Response to Treatment in Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer to Bone. , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  Jennifer L. Lund,et al.  Comparison of SEER Treatment Data With Medicare Claims , 2016, Medical care.

[24]  S. Tunis,et al.  The National Oncologic PET Registry: lessons learned for coverage with evidence development. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[25]  P. Fox,et al.  Prognostic Factors in Patients Treated with 223Ra: The Role of Skeletal Tumor Burden on Baseline 18F-Fluoride PET/CT in Predicting Overall Survival , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  Lucy Hanna,et al.  18F-Fluoride PET Used for Treatment Monitoring of Systemic Cancer Therapy: Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[27]  Vincent Mor,et al.  Change in end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries: site of death, place of care, and health care transitions in 2000, 2005, and 2009. , 2013, JAMA.

[28]  A. Sasse,et al.  18F-Fluoride PET/CT tumor burden quantification predicts survival in breast cancer , 2017, Oncotarget.

[29]  R. Coleman,et al.  Impact of 18F-Fluoride PET on Intended Management of Patients with Cancers Other Than Prostate Cancer: Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2014, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[30]  Lucy Hanna,et al.  Intended Versus Inferred Care After PET Performed for Initial Staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[31]  Lucy Hanna,et al.  Intended Versus Inferred Management After PET For Cancer Restaging: Analysis of Medicare Claims Linked to a Coverage With Evidence Development Registry , 2013, Medical care.

[32]  M. Levine,et al.  Registries that show efficacy: good, but not good enough. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.