Brief Article
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Radiol. Mar 28, 2014; 6(3): 48-55
Published online Mar 28, 2014. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i3.48
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Ref.YearCountryTumour (histology)IndicationPerspective,type of studyResults, unit and comparison alternatives
Hollenbeak et al[25]2001United StatesNeck (various)StagingHospital, decision treeICER (US$/LYG (US$/QALY)): 8718 (2505) (CT + PET vs CT)
Yen et al[26]2009TaiwanHead/neck (nasopharyngeal carcinoma)RestagingHospital, decision treeICUR (US$/QALY): 462 (PET + MRI vs MRI)
Sher et al[27]2010United StatesHead/neck (squamous cell carcinoma)RestagingPublic payer (medicare), markov modelICER (US$/QALY): 1500 (PET-CT vs CT in RD after chemiotherapy)
Rabalais et al[28]2012United StatesHead/Neck (various)RestagingPublic payer (medicare), decision treeICER (US $): 3854397 (PET-CT vs neck dissection)
Sloka et al[29]2005CanadaBreast (various)StagingHospital, meta-analysis, decision treePET + ALND dominating ALND [cost savings (US $): 695, increase in life expectancy: 7.4 d]
Meng et al[30]2011United KingdomBreast (various)StagingHealth care system, decision treeNMB (UK£ 30000 per QALY): 1085 (replace SLNB with PET)
Klose et al[31]2000GermanyLymphoma (various)StagingHospital, micro-costing approachICER (€): 3133 (FDG-PET vs CT)
Bradbury et al[6]2002United KingdomLymphoma (HL)RestagingHealth care system, decision tree and Markov modelWTP (£/LYG): 1000 (PET after positive CT vs CT + PET)
Cerci et al[32]2010BrazilLymphoma (HL)Post-treatHospital, decision treeICER ($): 3268 (CT + PET + biopsy vs CT + biopsy)
Cerci et al[33]2011BrazilLymphoma (HL)StagingHospital, micro-costing approachICER ($): 16215 (PET/CT vs CT and biopsy)
Park et al[34]2001United StatesColon-rectum (various)RestagingPublic payer (medicare), decision treeICER (US$/LYG): 16437 (CT + PET vs PET)
Lejeune et al[35]2005FranceColon-rectum (metastases)StagingHealth care system, decision treeICER: dominated (CT vs CT + PET)
Wiering et al[36]2010NetherlandsColon-rectum (metastases)RestagingHealth care system, randomized clinical trialNMB (€): 11060 (CWU vs CWU + FDG-PET)
Krug et al[37]2010BelgiumMelanoma (metastases)RestagingHealth care system, Markov modelICER: dominated (PET-TC vs CT). NMB (€):1048, gain of 0.2 LMG
Wallace et al[38]2002United StatesEsophagus (various)StagingPublic payer (medicare), decision treeMarginal ICER ($/QALY): 60544 (PET + EUS-FNA vs CT + EUS-FNA)
Mansueto et al[39]2009ItalyOvary (various)RestagingHealth care system, decision treeICER (€/SA): 226.77 (PET/CT for All)
Table 2 Characteristics of excluded studies
Ref.YearCountryTumors(histology)Reason for exclusion
Bongers et al[7]2002NetherlandsNeck (laryngeal cancer)Cost study
van Hooren et al[8]2009NetherlandsNeck (laryngeal carcinoma)Cost study
Uly-de Groot et al[9]2010NetherlandsHead/neck (metastases)Cost study
Kurien et al[10]2011United StatesHead/neck (various)Cost study
Schergerin et al[11]2009United StatesBreast (various)No PET comparison
Auguste et al[12]2011United KingdomBreast (various)Review
Cooper et al[13]2011United KingdomBreast (various)Review
Strobel et al[14]2007SwitzerlandLymphoma (various)Cost study
Moulin-Romsee et al[15]2008BelgiumLymphoma (NHL)Cost study
Brush et al[16]2011United KingdomColon-rectum (various)Review
von Schulthess et al[17]1998SwitzerlandMelanoma (various)Cost study
Bastiaannet et al[18]2012NetherlandsMelanoma (various)Cost study
Heinzel et al[19]2012GermanyBrain (glioma)Aminoacid PET
Heinzel et al[20]2012GermanyBrain (glioma)Aminoacid PET
Hetzel et al[21]2003GermanyBone (metastases)F18-Fluoride PET
Tateishi et al[22]2010JapanBone (metastases)F18-Fluoride PET
Heinrich et al[23]2005AustriaPancreas (various)Cost study
Rondina et al[24]2012United StatesOccult (various)Cost study