These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 18FDG-PET-CT in the follow-up of non-small cell lung cancer patients after radical radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: an economic evaluation.
    Author: van Loon J, Grutters JP, Wanders R, Boersma L, Dingemans AM, Bootsma G, Geraedts W, Pitz C, Simons J, Brans B, Snoep G, Hochstenbag M, Lambin P, De Ruysscher D.
    Journal: Eur J Cancer; 2010 Jan; 46(1):110-9. PubMed ID: 19944595.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The optimal follow-up strategy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients after curative intent therapy is still not established. In a recent prospective study with 100 patients, we showed that a FDG-PET-CT 3 months after radiotherapy (RT) could identify progression amenable for curative treatment in 2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1-7%) of patients, who were all asymptomatic. Here, we report on the economic evaluation of this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed in which the long-term cost-effectiveness of 3 follow-up strategies was modelled with different imaging methods 3 months after therapy: a PET-CT scan; a chest CT scan; and conventional follow-up with a chest X-ray. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty. Because the results of the prospective study indicated that the advantage seems to be confined to asymptomatic patients, we additionally examined a strategy where a PET-CT was applied only in the subgroup of asymptomatic patients. Cost-effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies was expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), calculating the incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Both PET-CT- and CT-based follow-up were more costly but also more effective than conventional follow-up. CT-based follow-up was only slightly more effective than conventional follow-up, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of euro 264.033 per QALY gained. For PET-CT-based follow-up, the ICER was euro 69.086 per QALY gained compared to conventional follow-up. The strategy in which a PET-CT was only performed in the asymptomatic subgroup resulted in an ICER of euro 42.265 per QALY gained as opposed to conventional follow-up. With this strategy, given a ceiling ratio of euro 80.000, PET-CT-based follow-up had the highest probability of being cost-effective (73%). CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation shows that a PET-CT scan 3 months after (chemo)radiotherapy with curative intent is a potentially cost-effective follow-up method, and is more cost-effective than CT alone. Applying a PET-CT scan only in asymptomatic patients is probably as effective and more cost-effective. It is worthwhile to perform additional research to reduce uncertainty regarding the decision concerning imaging in the follow-up of NSCLC.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]