» Articles » PMID: 29191854

Intended Versus Inferred Treatment After F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry

Overview
Journal J Nucl Med
Specialty Nuclear Medicine
Date 2017 Dec 2
PMID 29191854
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We have previously reported that PET with F-fluoride (NaF PET) for assessment of osseous metastatic disease led to changes in intended management in a substantial fraction of patients with prostate or other types of cancer participating in the National Oncologic PET Registry. This study was performed to assess the concordance of intended patient management after NaF PET and inferred management based on analysis of Medicare claims. We analyzed linked post-NaF PET data of consenting National Oncologic PET Registry participants age 65 y or older from 2011 to 2014 and their corresponding Medicare claims. Post-NaF PET treatment plans, including combinations of 2 modes of therapy, were assessed for their concordance with clinical actions inferred from Medicare claims. NaF PET studies were stratified by indication (initial staging [IS] or suspected first osseous metastasis [FOM]) and cancer type (prostate, lung, or other cancers). Agreement was assessed between post-NaF PET intended management plans for treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, or systemic therapy) within 90 d for lung and 180 d for prostate or other cancers, and for watching (the absence of treatment claims for ≥60 d) as compared with claims-inferred care. Actions after 9,898 scans were assessed. After NaF PET for IS, there was claims agreement for planned surgery in 76.0% (19/25) lung, 75.4% (98/130) other cancers, and 58.9% (298/506) prostate cancer. Claims confirmed chemotherapy plans after NaF PET done for IS or FOM in 81.0% and 73.5% for lung cancer ( = 148 and 136) and 69.4% and 67.5% for other cancers ( = 111 and 228). For radiotherapy plans, agreement ranged from 80.0% to 84.4% after IS and 68.4% to 74.0% for suspected FOM. Concordance was greatest for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (86.0%, = 308) alone or combined with radiotherapy in prostate cancer IS (80.8%, = 517). In prostate FOM, the concordance across all treatment plans was lower if the patients had ADT claims within 180 d before NaF PET. Agreement with nontreatment plans was high for FOM (87.2% in other cancers and 78.6% if no prior ADT in prostate) and low after IS (40.7%-62.5%). Concordance of post-NaF PET plans and claims was substantial and higher overall for IS than for FOM.

Citing Articles

Use of F-NaF PET in the staging of skeletal metastases of newly diagnosed, high-risk prostate cancer patients: a nationwide cohort study.

Mogensen A, Petersen L, Torp-Pedersen C, Norgaard M, Pank M, Zacho H BMJ Open. 2022; 12(6):e058898.

PMID: 35705343 PMC: 9204404. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058898.


Comparison of Ga-PSMA PET/CT with fluoride PET/CT for detection of bone metastatic disease in prostate cancer.

Regula N, Kostaras V, Johansson S, Trampal C, Lindstrom E, Lubberink M Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2022; 6(1):5.

PMID: 35229224 PMC: 8885936. DOI: 10.1186/s41824-022-00127-4.


Prospective Analysis of the Impact of 68Ga-DOTATOC Positron Emission Tomography-Computerized Axial Tomography on Management of Pancreatic and Small Bowel Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Ghobrial S, Menda Y, Zamba G, Mott S, Gaimari-Varner K, Dick D Pancreas. 2020; 49(8):1033-1036.

PMID: 32769854 PMC: 7447173. DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001625.


F-NaF/RaCl theranostics in metastatic prostate cancer: treatment response assessment and prediction of outcome.

Jadvar H, Colletti P Br J Radiol. 2018; 91(1091):20170948.

PMID: 29630398 PMC: 6475949. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170948.

References
1.
Hillner B, Siegel B, Liu D, Shields A, Gareen I, Hanna L . Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(13):2155-61. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5631. View

2.
Scott A, Gunawardana D, Kelley B, Stuckey J, Byrne A, Ramshaw J . PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49(9):1451-7. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.051615. View

3.
Scott A, Gunawardana D, Bartholomeusz D, Ramshaw J, Lin P . PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with head and neck cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49(10):1593-600. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.053660. View

4.
Hillner B, Siegel B, Shields A, Liu D, Gareen I, Hunt E . Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/CT on intended management: findings of the national oncologic PET registry. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49(12):1928-35. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.056713. View

5.
Tateishi U, Morita S, Taguri M, Shizukuishi K, Minamimoto R, Kawaguchi M . A meta-analysis of (18)F-Fluoride positron emission tomography for assessment of metastatic bone tumor. Ann Nucl Med. 2010; 24(7):523-31. DOI: 10.1007/s12149-010-0393-7. View