Economic Evaluation of PET and PET/CT in Oncology: Evidence and Methodologic Approaches

PET and PET/CT have changed the diagnostic algorithm in oncology. Health care systems worldwide have recently approved reimbursement for PET and PET/CT for staging of non–small cell lung cancer and differential diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules because PET and PET/CT have been found to be cost-effective for those uses. Additional indications that are covered by health care systems in the United States and several European countries include staging of gastrointestinal tract cancers, breast cancer, malignant lymphoma, melanoma, and head and neck cancers. Regarding these indications, diagnostic effectiveness and superiority over conventional imaging modalities have been shown, whereas cost-effectiveness has been demonstrated only in part. This article reports on the current knowledge of economic evaluations of PET and PET/CT in oncologic applications. Because more economic evaluations are needed for several clinical indications, we also report on the methodologies for conducting economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and suggest an approach toward the implementation of these tests in future clinical studies.

[1]  Thomas F Hany,et al.  Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. , 2006, Radiology.

[2]  Wolfgang A Weber,et al.  Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  B. Cheson,et al.  The role of FDG-PET scans in patients with lymphoma. , 2007, Blood.

[4]  R. Coleman,et al.  Recommendations on the Use of 18F-FDG PET in Oncology , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  J. Shepherd,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for staging non-small cell lung cancer: a decision analysis. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[6]  L. Adler,et al.  Axillary lymph node metastases: screening with [F-18]2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) PET. , 1997, Radiology.

[7]  A. Gandjour,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: priority for a PET-based strategy after nodal-negative CT results , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[9]  A. Dowlati,et al.  Evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule by positron emission tomography imaging. , 1996, The European respiratory journal.

[10]  F. Nüsslin,et al.  High-Precision Radiation Therapy with Integrated Biological Imaging and Tumor Monitoring , 2006, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie.

[11]  Martin Hutchings,et al.  FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. , 2006, Blood.

[12]  P. Valk,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of PET imaging in clinical oncology. , 1996, Nuclear medicine and biology.

[13]  C. Hollenbeak,et al.  The cost‐effectiveness of fluorodeoxyglucose 18‐F positron emission tomography in the N0 neck , 2001, Cancer.

[14]  S S Gambhir,et al.  Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. , 1997, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  I. Bradbury,et al.  Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography imaging in selected cancers. , 2007, Health technology assessment.

[16]  Wolfgang A Weber,et al.  PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. , 2007, The Lancet. Oncology.

[17]  C. Dooms,et al.  Cost–utility analysis of chemotherapy in symptomatic advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer , 2006, European Respiratory Journal.

[18]  A. Lloyd,et al.  Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. , 2008, Lung cancer.

[19]  K. Miles An approach to demonstrating cost-effectiveness of diagnostic imaging modalities in Australia illustrated by positron emission tomography. , 2001, Australasian radiology.

[20]  N. Gupta,et al.  Dynamic positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in differentiation of benign from malignant lung/mediastinal lesions. , 1998, Chest.

[21]  S. Ellenberg,et al.  Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments. Part 2: Practical Issues and Specific Cases , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  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.

[23]  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.

[24]  Sanjiv S. Gambhir,et al.  Decision Analysis for the Cost-Effective Management of Recurrent Colorectal Cancer , 2001, Annals of surgery.

[25]  R. Ramlau,et al.  Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  R. Norman,et al.  Economic Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), CHERE Working Paper 2007/6 , 2007 .

[27]  M. Kris,et al.  A comparison of visual analogue and numerical rating scale formats for the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS): Does format affect patient ratings of symptoms and quality of life? , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[28]  S. Reske,et al.  Primary staging of lymphomas: cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET versus computed tomography , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[29]  Klemens Scheidhauer,et al.  Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  S S Ellenberg,et al.  Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments. Part 1: Ethical and Scientific Issues , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[31]  S. Kosuda,et al.  Decision-tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of chest 2-fluoro-2-D-[(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with pulmonary nodules (non-small cell lung carcinoma) in Japan. , 2000, Chest.

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

[33]  Johan L Severens,et al.  Discounting health outcomes in economic evaluation: the ongoing debate. , 2004, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[34]  T. Bilfinger,et al.  The impact of positron emission tomography on clinical decision making in a university-based multidisciplinary lung cancer practice. , 2005, Chest.

[35]  John E. Connolly,et al.  Prognostic value of thoracic FDG PET imaging after treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[36]  M E Phelps,et al.  Whole-body FDG-PET imaging for staging of Hodgkin's disease and lymphoma. , 1997, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[37]  P. Makler Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. , 1997, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[38]  K. Miles,et al.  Solitary pulmonary nodules: accuracy and cost-effectiveness of sodium iodide FDG-PET using Australian data , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[39]  G. V. von Schulthess,et al.  Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[40]  B. Cheson,et al.  Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[41]  F. Miller,et al.  What Makes Placebo-Controlled Trials Unethical? , 2002, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[42]  M. Boers,et al.  Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial , 2002, The Lancet.

[43]  M. Schäfer,et al.  Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Influences on the Management of Resectable Pancreatic Cancer and Its Cost-Effectiveness , 2005, Annals of surgery.

[44]  M. Schwaiger,et al.  Early Metabolic Response Evaluation by Fluorine-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Allows In vivo Testing of Chemosensitivity in Gastric Cancer: Long-term Results of a Prospective Study , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[45]  R. Brooks EuroQol: the current state of play. , 1996, Health policy.

[46]  W. Weber Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[47]  R. Kelly,et al.  Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of [18F]-2-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography scan in potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer. , 2004, Chest.

[48]  Stuart Birks,et al.  Discounting Health Effects in Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations: Current Controversies , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[49]  M. Kris,et al.  Quality of life assessment in individuals with lung cancer: testing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). , 1993, European journal of cancer.

[50]  Cyrill Burger,et al.  Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography (PET/CT): a feasibility study. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[51]  F. Guillemin,et al.  Use of a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET in the management of metachronous liver metastases of colorectal cancer. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[52]  Michael K Gould,et al.  Noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: ACCP evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). , 2007, Chest.