[Benefit assessment of PET in malignant lymphomas. The IQWiG point of view]. / Nutzenbewertung der PET bei malignen Lymphomen - Standpunkt des IQWiG.

The call by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to prove the patient-relevant benefit of positron emission tomography (PET) is currently a controversial topic in Germany. From a methodological point of view there is essentially no difference between diagnostic procedures and therapeutic (drug or non-drug) interventions in proving their causal benefit. A broad consensus has been reached since the 1960s (e.g. FDA regulations) that RCTs are the methodological gold standard for therapeutic interventions. Nevertheless, the same arguments that were cited against RCTs in assessing the benefit of therapeutic interventions are now used against RCTs in evaluating diagnostic tests (e.g. ethical problems, feasibility, etc.). This paper summarizes the central methodological arguments of the discussion on the benefit assessment of PET in malignant lymphomas from the perspective of IQWiG and its external experts.

Prognostic impact of DNA-image-cytometry in neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumours.

Establishing prognosis proves particularly difficult with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) as a benign looking histology can be associated with a malignant behaviour. In order to identify prognostic factors we examined 44 gastrointestinal and pulmonary, paraffin-embedded NETs histologically and immunohistochemically. DNA-image-cytometry was used to examine 40 of these. We found that poor differentiation (corresponding to a Soga and Tazawa type D) and infiltrative growth correlated with a poorer prognosis. Moreover, parameters determined by diagnostic DNA cytometry like the 5c-exceeding rate, the 2c-deviation index, DNA-grade of malignancy, DNA-entropy and the type of DNA histogram were found to be of prognostic relevance. Morphometric parameters like the form factor and the mean nuclear area were relevant for survival, tumour recurrence and metastasis. However, in the multivariate analysis the only independent risk factor was the histological differentiation. The 5c-exceeding rate is a good objective risk factor, which can be used particularly in cases in which only a fine needle biopsy is available. Direct comparison of the histology and the 5c-exceeding rate in the multivariate analysis suggests that the 5c-exceeding rate taken as sole prognostic factor might be of higher prognostic relevance than the histology but larger studies are needed to confirm this.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of new-generation computed tomography scanners for imaging in coronary artery disease and congenital heart disease: Somatom Definition Flash, Aquilion ONE, Brilliance iCT and Discovery CT750 HD.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is important in diagnosing and managing many conditions, including coronary artery disease (CAD) and congenital heart disease. Current CT scanners can very accurately diagnose CAD requiring revascularisation in most patients. However, imaging technologies have developed rapidly and new-generation computed tomography (NGCCT) scanners may benefit patients who are difficult to image (e.g. obese patients, patients with high or irregular heart beats and patients who have high levels of coronary calcium or a previous stent or bypass graft). OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for diagnosing clinically significant CAD in patients who are difficult to image using 64-slice computed tomography and treatment planning in complex congenital heart disease. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases were searched from 2000 to February/March 2011, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database and Science Citation Index (SCI). Trial registers and conference proceedings were searched. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review methods followed published guidance. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Results were stratified by patient group. Summary sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate summary receiver operating characteristic, or random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-squared statistic and I(2)-statistic. Cost-effectiveness of NGCCT was modelled separately for suspected and known CAD, evaluating invasive coronary angiography (ICA) only, ICA after positive NGCCT (NGCCT-ICA), and NGCCT only. The cost-effectiveness of NGCCT, compared with 64-slice CT, in reducing imaging-associated radiation in congenital heart disease was assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies reported accuracy of NGCCT for diagnosing CAD in difficult-to-image patients. No clinical effectiveness studies of NGCCT in congenital heart disease were identified. The pooled per-patient estimates of sensitivity were 97.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.0% to 99.9%], 97.7% (95% CI 93.2% to 99.3%) and 96.0% (95% CI 88.8% to 99.2%) for patients with arrhythmias, high heart rates and previous stent, respectively. The corresponding estimates of specificity were 81.7% (95% CI 71.6% to 89.4%), 86.3% (95% CI 80.2% to 90.7%) and 81.6% (95% CI 74.7% to 87.3%), respectively. In patients with high coronary calcium scores, previous bypass grafts or obesity, only per-segment or per-artery data were available. Sensitivity estimates remained high (> 90% in all but one study). In patients with suspected CAD, the NGCCT-only strategy appeared most cost-effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NGCCT-ICA compared with NGCCT only was £71,000. In patients with known CAD, the most cost-effective strategy was NGCCT-ICA (highest cost saving, dominates ICA only). The ICER of NGCCT only compared with NGCCT-ICA was £726,230. For radiation exposure only, the ICER for NGCCT compared with 64-slice CT in congenital heart disease ranged from £521,000 for the youngest patients to £90,000 for adults. LIMITATIONS: Available data were limited, particularly for obese patients and patients with previous bypass grafts. All studies of the accuracy of NGCCT assume that the reference standard (ICA) is 100% sensitive and specific; however, there is some evidence that ICA may sometimes underestimate the extent and severity of stenosis. Patients with more than one criterion that could contribute to difficulty in imaging were often excluded from studies; the effect on test accuracy of multiple difficult to image criteria remains uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: NGCCT may be sufficiently accurate to diagnose clinically significant CAD in some or all difficult-to-image patient groups. Economic analyses suggest that NGCCT is likely to be considered cost-effective for difficult-to-image patients with CAD, at current levels of willingness to pay in the NHS. For patients with suspected CAD, NGCCT only would be most favourable; for patients with known CAD, NGCCT-ICA would be most favourable. No studies assessing the effects of NGCCT on therapeutic decision making, or subsequent patient outcomes, were identified. The ideal study to address these questions would be a large multi-centre RCT. However, one possible alternative might be to establish a multicentre tracker study. High-quality test accuracy studies, particularly in obese patients, patients with high coronary calcium, and those with previous bypass grafts are needed to confirm the findings of our systematic review. These studies should include patients with multiple difficult to image criteria. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. This project was funded by the HTA programme, on behalf of NICE, as project number 10/107/01.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue® (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the characterisation of focal liver lesions and detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medical imaging techniques are important in the management of many patients with liver disease. Unenhanced ultrasound examinations sometimes identify focal abnormalities in the liver that may require further investigation, primarily to distinguish liver cancers from benign abnormalities. One important factor in selecting an imaging test is the ability to provide a rapid diagnosis. Options for additional imaging investigations include computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsy when the diagnosis remains uncertain. CT and MRI usually require referral with associated waiting time and are sometimes contraindicated. The use of contrast agents may improve the ability of ultrasound to distinguish between liver cancer and benign abnormalities and, because it can be performed at the same appointment as unenhanced ultrasound, more rapid diagnoses may be possible. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using SonoVue(®) with that of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) for the assessment of adults with focal liver lesions (FLLs) in whom previous liver imaging is inconclusive. DATA SOURCES: Eight bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched from 2000 to September/October 2011. Research registers and conference proceedings were also searched. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review methods followed published guidance. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the QUADAS-2 tool. Results were stratified by clinical indication for imaging (characterisation of FLLs detected on ultrasound surveillance of cirrhosis patients, detection of liver metastases, characterisation of incidentally detected FLLs, assessment of treatment response). For incidental FLLs, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity, with 95% CIs, were calculated using a random-effects model. For other clinical indications a narrative summary was used. The cost-effectiveness of CEUS was modelled separately for the three main clinical applications considered [characterisation of FLLs detected on ultrasound surveillance of cirrhosis patients, detection of liver metastases in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), characterisation of incidentally detected FLLs]. RESULTS: Of the 854 references identified, 19 (describing 18 studies) were included in the review. Hand searching of conference proceedings identified a further three studies. Twenty of the 21 studies included in the systematic review were diagnostic test accuracy studies. Studies in cirrhosis patients reported varying estimates of test performance. There was no consistent evidence of a significant difference in performance between imaging modalities. It was unclear whether or not CEUS alone is adequate to rule out hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for FLLs of < 30 mm; one study indicated that CEUS may be better at ruling out HCC for FLLs of 11-30 mm [very small FLLs (< 10 mm) excluded]. There was no consistent evidence of a difference in test performance between imaging modalities for the detection of metastases; CEUS alone may be adequate to rule out liver metastases in colorectal cancer. In patients with incidentally detected FLLs, the pooled estimates of sensitivity for any malignancy using CEUS and CECT were 95.1% and 94.6%, respectively, and the corresponding specificity estimates were 93.8% and 93.1% respectively. One study comparing CEUS with CEMRI reported similar sensitivity and lower specificity for both modalities. In the surveillance of cirrhosis, CEUS was as effective as but £379 less costly than CECT. CEMRI was £1063 more costly than CEUS and gained 0.022 QALYs. In the detection of liver metastases from CRC, CEUS cost £1 more than CECT, and at a lifetime time horizon they yielded equal QALYs. CEMRI was dominated by CECT. In the characterisation of incidentally detected FLLs, CEUS was slightly more effective than CECT and CEMRI (by 0.0002 QALYs and 0.0026 QALYs respectively) and less costly (by £52 and £131 respectively). LIMITATIONS: There were a number of methodological issues specific to the studies included in this review. The main indication for liver imaging in the populations considered is likely to be to rule out primary liver cancer or metastases. Therefore, patient-level analyses of test performance are of particular interest. Some of the studies included in this review reported per-patient analyses; however, no study clearly stated how results were defined (e.g. was the presence of any positive lesion regarded as a positive test for the whole patient). In addition, a number of studies reported data for one lesion per patient (treated as per-patient data in this assessment). These studies generally selected the largest lesion or the lesion 'most suspicious for malignancy' for inclusion in analyses, with the consequence that estimates of test performance may have been exaggerated. The applicability of studies included in this review may be limited, as the majority of imaging studies were interpreted by multiple, experienced operators and the prevalence of malignancy in included studies appeared higher than might be expected in clinical practice. The cost-effectiveness analyses did not take into account the potential benefits of reduced anxiety that may arise from potentially shorter waiting times associated with SonoVue CEUS. CONCLUSIONS: SonoVue CEUS could provide similar diagnostic performance to other imaging modalities (CECT and CEMRI) for the assessment of FLLs. Economic analyses indicated that CEUS was a cost-effective replacement for CEMRI. The use of CEUS instead of CECT was considered cost-effective in the surveillance of cirrhosis and the characterisation of incidentally detected FLLs, with similar costs and effects for the detection of liver metastases from CRC. Further research is needed to compare the effects of different imaging modalities (SonoVue CEUS, CECT, CEMRI) on therapeutic planning, treatment and clinical outcomes. Future test accuracy studies should provide standardised definitions of a positive imaging test, and compare all three imaging modalities in the same patient group. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42011001694. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.