Journals Library

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue:{{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://dx.doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To review the published economic studies that have evaluated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the treatment of recurrent breast cancer, and to develop and carry out a model-based economic evaluation to investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of PET/CT to detect breast cancer recurrence compared with conventional work-up.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of economic and diagnostic evidence for PET/CT in diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence. The original databases searched include MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to week 5 May 2009), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to 2009 week 22) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. An updated search was conducted for each database from May 2009 to week 4 April 2010.

METHODS

A decision tree was developed in TREEAGE software (TreeAge Software Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA). The relevant data on accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic test were linked in the model, to costs and the primary outcome measure, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The model estimated the mean cost associated with each diagnostic procedure and assumed that patients entering the model were aged 50-75 years. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

The ICER for the strategy of PET compared with conventional work-up was estimated at £29,300 per QALY; the ICER for PET/CT compared with PET was £ 31,000 per QALY; and the ICER for PET/CT combined with conventional work-up versus PET/CT was £ 42,100. Clearly, for each additional diagnostic test that is added to PET, the more expensive the package becomes, but also the more effective it becomes in terms of QALYs gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY, conventional work-up is the preferred option.

LIMITATIONS

Only data from indirect comparisons are available from the accuracy review, and there is some uncertainty about whether the data defining the accuracy of PET/CT present its use as a replacement or as an adjunct to conventional work-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current model and given the limitations that are apparent in terms of limited availability of data, the result of the current analysis suggests that the use of PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer in every woman suspected of having a recurrence is unlikely to be cost-effective given the current willingness-to-pay thresholds that are accepted in the UK by decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Our modelling suggests that conventional work-up could be the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy given current data. Future studies need to secure robust cost data that can be verified from more than one source for the diagnostic tests involved in PET and PET/CT. Reliable and verifiable data on quality of life associated with this clinical condition are also crucial.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To review the published economic studies that have evaluated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the treatment of recurrent breast cancer, and to develop and carry out a model-based economic evaluation to investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of PET/CT to detect breast cancer recurrence compared with conventional work-up.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of economic and diagnostic evidence for PET/CT in diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence. The original databases searched include MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to week 5 May 2009), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to 2009 week 22) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. An updated search was conducted for each database from May 2009 to week 4 April 2010.

METHODS

A decision tree was developed in TREEAGE software (TreeAge Software Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA). The relevant data on accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic test were linked in the model, to costs and the primary outcome measure, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The model estimated the mean cost associated with each diagnostic procedure and assumed that patients entering the model were aged 50-75 years. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

The ICER for the strategy of PET compared with conventional work-up was estimated at £29,300 per QALY; the ICER for PET/CT compared with PET was £ 31,000 per QALY; and the ICER for PET/CT combined with conventional work-up versus PET/CT was £ 42,100. Clearly, for each additional diagnostic test that is added to PET, the more expensive the package becomes, but also the more effective it becomes in terms of QALYs gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY, conventional work-up is the preferred option.

LIMITATIONS

Only data from indirect comparisons are available from the accuracy review, and there is some uncertainty about whether the data defining the accuracy of PET/CT present its use as a replacement or as an adjunct to conventional work-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current model and given the limitations that are apparent in terms of limited availability of data, the result of the current analysis suggests that the use of PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer in every woman suspected of having a recurrence is unlikely to be cost-effective given the current willingness-to-pay thresholds that are accepted in the UK by decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Our modelling suggests that conventional work-up could be the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy given current data. Future studies need to secure robust cost data that can be verified from more than one source for the diagnostic tests involved in PET and PET/CT. Reliable and verifiable data on quality of life associated with this clinical condition are also crucial.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

 

Responses to this report

 

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions