Cargando…
FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations
PURPOSE: The Region of Southern Denmark (RSD), covering 1.2 of Denmark’s 5.6 million inhabitants, established a task force to (1) retrieve literature evidence for the clinical use of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and provide consequent recommendations and further to (2) compare the actual us...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4764641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26519292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3217-0 |
_version_ | 1782417409376780288 |
---|---|
author | Petersen, Henrik Holdgaard, Paw Christian Madsen, Poul Henning Knudsen, Lene Meldgaard Gad, Dorte Gravergaard, Anders Eggert Rohde, Max Godballe, Christian Engelmann, Bodil Elisabeth Bech, Karsten Teilmann-Jørgensen, Dorte Mogensen, Ole Karstoft, Jens Johansen, Jørgen Christensen, Janne Buck Johansen, Allan Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming |
author_facet | Petersen, Henrik Holdgaard, Paw Christian Madsen, Poul Henning Knudsen, Lene Meldgaard Gad, Dorte Gravergaard, Anders Eggert Rohde, Max Godballe, Christian Engelmann, Bodil Elisabeth Bech, Karsten Teilmann-Jørgensen, Dorte Mogensen, Ole Karstoft, Jens Johansen, Jørgen Christensen, Janne Buck Johansen, Allan Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming |
author_sort | Petersen, Henrik |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The Region of Southern Denmark (RSD), covering 1.2 of Denmark’s 5.6 million inhabitants, established a task force to (1) retrieve literature evidence for the clinical use of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and provide consequent recommendations and further to (2) compare the actual use of PET/CT in the RSD with these recommendations. This article summarizes the results. METHODS: A Work Group appointed a professional Subgroup which made Clinician Groups conduct literature reviews on six selected cancers responsible for 5,768 (62.6 %) of 9,213 PET/CT scans in the RSD in 2012. Rapid Evidence Assessment was applied, using the methodology of systematic reviews with predefined limitations to search PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English/Danish/Swedish/Norwegian since 2002. PICO questions were defined, data recorded and quality appraised and rated with regard to strength and evidence level. Consequent recommendations for applications of PET/CT were established. The actual use of PET/CT was compared with these, where grades A and B indicated “established” and “useful” and grades C and D “potentially useful” and “non-recommendable” indications, respectively. RESULTS: Of 11,729 citations, 1,729 were considered for review, and 204 were included. The evidence suggested usefulness of PET/CT in lung, lymphoma, melanoma, head and neck, and colorectal cancers, whereas evidence was sparse in gynaecological cancers. The agreement between actual use of PET/CT and literature-based recommendations was high in the first five mentioned cancers in that 96.2 % of scans were made for grade A or B indications versus only 22.2 % in gynaecological cancers. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based usefulness was reported in five of six selected cancers; evidence was sparse in the sixth, gynaecological cancers. Actual use of PET/CT agreed well with recommendations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3217-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4764641 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47646412016-03-04 FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations Petersen, Henrik Holdgaard, Paw Christian Madsen, Poul Henning Knudsen, Lene Meldgaard Gad, Dorte Gravergaard, Anders Eggert Rohde, Max Godballe, Christian Engelmann, Bodil Elisabeth Bech, Karsten Teilmann-Jørgensen, Dorte Mogensen, Ole Karstoft, Jens Johansen, Jørgen Christensen, Janne Buck Johansen, Allan Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Original Article PURPOSE: The Region of Southern Denmark (RSD), covering 1.2 of Denmark’s 5.6 million inhabitants, established a task force to (1) retrieve literature evidence for the clinical use of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and provide consequent recommendations and further to (2) compare the actual use of PET/CT in the RSD with these recommendations. This article summarizes the results. METHODS: A Work Group appointed a professional Subgroup which made Clinician Groups conduct literature reviews on six selected cancers responsible for 5,768 (62.6 %) of 9,213 PET/CT scans in the RSD in 2012. Rapid Evidence Assessment was applied, using the methodology of systematic reviews with predefined limitations to search PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English/Danish/Swedish/Norwegian since 2002. PICO questions were defined, data recorded and quality appraised and rated with regard to strength and evidence level. Consequent recommendations for applications of PET/CT were established. The actual use of PET/CT was compared with these, where grades A and B indicated “established” and “useful” and grades C and D “potentially useful” and “non-recommendable” indications, respectively. RESULTS: Of 11,729 citations, 1,729 were considered for review, and 204 were included. The evidence suggested usefulness of PET/CT in lung, lymphoma, melanoma, head and neck, and colorectal cancers, whereas evidence was sparse in gynaecological cancers. The agreement between actual use of PET/CT and literature-based recommendations was high in the first five mentioned cancers in that 96.2 % of scans were made for grade A or B indications versus only 22.2 % in gynaecological cancers. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based usefulness was reported in five of six selected cancers; evidence was sparse in the sixth, gynaecological cancers. Actual use of PET/CT agreed well with recommendations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3217-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-10-30 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4764641/ /pubmed/26519292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3217-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Petersen, Henrik Holdgaard, Paw Christian Madsen, Poul Henning Knudsen, Lene Meldgaard Gad, Dorte Gravergaard, Anders Eggert Rohde, Max Godballe, Christian Engelmann, Bodil Elisabeth Bech, Karsten Teilmann-Jørgensen, Dorte Mogensen, Ole Karstoft, Jens Johansen, Jørgen Christensen, Janne Buck Johansen, Allan Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations |
title | FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations |
title_full | FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations |
title_fullStr | FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations |
title_full_unstemmed | FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations |
title_short | FDG PET/CT in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations |
title_sort | fdg pet/ct in cancer: comparison of actual use with literature-based recommendations |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4764641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26519292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3217-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT petersenhenrik fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT holdgaardpawchristian fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT madsenpoulhenning fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT knudsenlenemeldgaard fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT gaddorte fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT gravergaardanderseggert fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT rohdemax fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT godballechristian fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT engelmannbodilelisabeth fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT bechkarsten fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT teilmannjørgensendorte fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT mogensenole fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT karstoftjens fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT johansenjørgen fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT christensenjannebuck fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT johansenallan fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT høilundcarlsenpoulflemming fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations AT fdgpetctincancercomparisonofactualusewithliteraturebasedrecommendations |