Brief Article
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Radiol. Mar 28, 2014; 6(3): 48-55
Published online Mar 28, 2014. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i3.48
Cost-effectiveness of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in tumours other than lung cancer: A systematic review
Salvatore Annunziata, Carmelo Caldarella, Giorgio Treglia
Salvatore Annunziata, Carmelo Caldarella, Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 00168 Rome, Italy
Giorgio Treglia, Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT Center, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland
Author contributions: All authors contributed to the manuscript.
Correspondence to: Salvatore Annunziata, MD, Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Largo Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy. salvatoreannunziata@live.it
Telephone: +39-63-0154978 Fax: +39-63-013745
Received: November 2, 2013
Revised: December 31, 2013
Accepted: February 16, 2014
Published online: March 28, 2014
Abstract

AIM: To systematically review published data on the cost-effectiveness of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) in tumours other than lung cancer.

METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of studies published in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase databases through the 10th of October in 2013 was carried out. A search algorithm based on a combination of the terms: (1) “PET” or “ PET/computed tomography (PET/CT)” or “positron emission tomography”; and (2) “cost-effectiveness” or “cost-utility” or “cost-efficacy” or “technology assessment” or “health technology assessment” was used. Only cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses in English language were included. Exclusion criteria were: (1) articles not within the field of interest of this review; (2) review articles, editorials or letters, conference proceedings; and (3) outcome evaluation studies, cost studies or health technology assessment reports. For each included study, information was collected concerning basic study, type of tumours evaluated, perspective/type of study, results, unit and comparison alternatives.

RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. Head and neck tumours were evaluated in 4 articles, lymphoma in 4, colon-rectum tumours in 3 and breast tumours in 2. Only one article was retrieved for melanoma, oesophagus and ovary tumours. Cost-effectiveness results of FDG-PET or PET/CT ranged from dominated to dominant.

CONCLUSION: Literature evidence about the cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET or PET/CT in tumours other than lung cancer is still limited. Nevertheless, FDG-PET or PET/CT seems to be cost-effective in selective indications in oncology (staging and restaging of head and neck tumours, staging and treatment evaluation in lymphoma).

Keywords: Positron emission tomography, Positron emission tomography /computed tomography, Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose, Cost-effectiveness, Oncology

Core tip: Evidence based data about the cost-effectiveness of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) in lung cancer already exist. The aim of our study is to systematically review published data on the cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET or PET/CT in tumours other than lung cancer.