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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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