Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5631 on March 24 2008

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Erratum (v26,p4229) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hillner, B. E. Articles by Coleman, R. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hillner, B. E. Articles by Coleman, R. E. Related Articles Related Editorial Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

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

Bruce E. Hillner, Barry A. Siegel, Dawei Liu, Anthony F. Shields, Ilana F. Gareen, Lucy Hanna, Sharon Hartson Stine, R. Edward Coleman

From the Department of Internal Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Division of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology and the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI; Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; American College of Radiology, Philadelphia, PA; and the Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC

Corresponding author: Bruce E. Hillner, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1101 E Marshall St, Room 7013, Richmond, VA 23298-0170; e-mail: Hillner{at}vcu.edu

Purpose Under Medicare's Coverage with Evidence Development policy, positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and PET became covered services for previously noncovered cancer indications if prospective registry data were collected. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) was developed to meet these coverage requirements and to assess how PET affects care decisions.

Methods The NOPR collected questionnaire data from referring physicians on intended patient management before and after PET. After 1 year, the cohort included data from 22,975 studies (83.7% PET/CT) from 1,178 centers. The numbers of scans performed for diagnosis of suspected cancer (or unknown primary cancer), initial cancer staging, restaging, and suspected cancer recurrence were approximately equal. Prostatic, pancreatic and ovarian cancers represented approximately 30% of cases.

Results If PET data were not available, the most common pre-PET plan would have been other imaging. In these patients, the post-PET strategies changed to watching in 37% and treatment in 48%. In patients with planned biopsy before PET, biopsy was avoided in approximately 70%. If the pre-PET strategy was treatment, the post-PET strategy involved a major change in type in 8.7% and goal in 5.6%. When intended management was classified as either treatment or nontreatment, the post-PET plan was three-fold more likely to lead to treatment than nontreatment (28.3% v 8.2%; odds ratio = 3.4; 95% CI, 3.2 to 3.6). Overall, physicians changed their intended management in 36.5% (95% CI, 35.9 to 37.2) of cases after PET.

Conclusion This large, prospective, nationally representative registry of elderly cancer patients found that physicians often change their intended management on the basis of PET scan results across the full spectrum of its potential uses.

published online ahead of print at www.jco.org on March 24, 2008.

Funding for development of the National Oncologic PET Registry was provided by the Academy for Molecular Imaging; but the registry is otherwise self-supported by the fees paid by participating PET facilities.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

Related Editorial

• Practice-Based Evidence of the Beneficial Impact of Positron Emission Tomography in Clinical Oncology
  Steven M. Larson
  JCO 2008 26: 2083-2084 [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Delbeke, S. Stroobants, E. de Kerviler, C. Gisselbrecht, M. Meignan, and P. S. Conti Expert Opinions on Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography Imaging in Lymphoma Oncologist, October 1, 2009; 14(suppl_2): 30 - 40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Shammas, R. Lim, and M. Charron Pediatric FDG PET/CT: Physiologic Uptake, Normal Variants, and Benign Conditions RadioGraphics, September 1, 2009; 29(5): 1467 - 1486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Lee Invited Commentary RadioGraphics, September 1, 2009; 29(5): 1500 - 1501. [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. A. Dreyer and S. Garner Registries for Robust Evidence JAMA, August 19, 2009; 302(7): 790 - 791. [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. J. Meropol, D. Schrag, T. J. Smith, T. M. Mulvey, R. M. Langdon Jr, D. Blum, P. A. Ubel, and L. E. Schnipper American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidance Statement: The Cost of Cancer Care J. Clin. Oncol., August 10, 2009; 27(23): 3868 - 3874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. MONTEIL, N. MAHMOUDI, S. LEOBON, P.Y. ROUDAUT, A. EL BADAOUI, S. VERBEKE, L. VENAT-BOUVET, J. MARTIN, V. LE BRUN-LY, S. LAVAU-DENES, et al. Chemotherapy Response Evaluation in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer with FDG PET/CT and CT Scans Anticancer Res, July 1, 2009; 29(7): 2563 - 2568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Weber Assessing Tumor Response to Therapy J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2009; 50(Suppl_1): 1S - 10S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Huang, M. W.-M. Law, and P.-L. Khong Whole-Body PET/CT Scanning: Estimation of Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 166 - 174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. E. Hillner, B. A. Siegel, A. F. Shields, D. Liu, I. F. Gareen, E. Hunt, and R. E. Coleman Relationship Between Cancer Type and Impact of PET and PET/CT on Intended Management: Findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2008; 49(12): 1928 - 1935. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Luboldt, R. Kufer, N. Blumstein, T. L. Toussaint, A. Kluge, M. D. Seemann, and H.-J. Luboldt Prostate Carcinoma: Diffusion-weighted Imaging as Potential Alternative to Conventional MR and 11C-Choline PET/CT for Detection of Bone Metastases Radiology, December 1, 2008; 249(3): 1017 - 1025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. N. Levine and J. A. Julian Registries That Show Efficacy: Good, but Not Good Enough J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2008; 26(33): 5316 - 5319. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Scott, D. H. Gunawardana, D. Bartholomeusz, J. E. Ramshaw, and P. Lin PET Changes Management and Improves Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2008; 49(10): 1593 - 1600. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Scott, D. H. Gunawardana, B. Kelley, J. G. Stuckey, A. J. Byrne, J. E. Ramshaw, and M. J. Fulham PET Changes Management and Improves Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2008; 49(9): 1451 - 1457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M. Larson Practice-Based Evidence of the Beneficial Impact of Positron Emission Tomography in Clinical Oncology J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2008; 26(13): 2083 - 2084. [Full Text] [PDF]