Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography and Subsequent Health Care Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia.

Importance: Results of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) have been shown to change the management of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia who meet Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC). Objective: To determine if amyloid PET is associated with reduced hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits over 12 months in patients with MCI or dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled trial analyzed participants in the Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) study, an open-label, multisite, longitudinal study that enrolled participants between February 2016 and December 2017 and followed up through December 2018. These participants were recruited at 595 clinical sites that provide specialty memory care across the US. Eligible participants were Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older with a diagnosis of MCI or dementia within the past 24 months who met published AUC for amyloid PET. Each IDEAS study participant was matched to a control Medicare beneficiary who had not undergone amyloid PET. Data analysis was conducted on December 13, 2022. Exposure: Participants underwent amyloid PET at imaging centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were the proportions of patients with 12-month inpatient hospital admissions and ED visits. One of 4 secondary end points was the rate of hospitalizations and rate of ED visits in participants with positive vs negative amyloid PET results. Health care use was ascertained from Medicare claims data. Results: The 2 cohorts (IDEAS study participants and controls) each comprised 12 684 adults, including 6467 females (51.0%) with a median (IQR) age of 77 (73-81) years. Over 12 months, 24.0% of the IDEAS study participants were hospitalized, compared with 25.1% of the matched control cohort, for a relative reduction of -4.49% (97.5% CI, -9.09% to 0.34%). The 12-month ED visit rates were nearly identical between the 2 cohorts (44.8% in both IDEAS study and control cohorts) for a relative reduction of -0.12% (97.5% CI, -3.19% to 3.05%). Both outcomes fell short of the prespecified effect size of 10% or greater relative reduction. Overall, 1467 of 6848 participants (21.4%) with positive amyloid PET scans were hospitalized within 12 months compared with 1081 of 4209 participants (25.7%) with negative amyloid PET scans (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this nonrandomized controlled trial showed that use of amyloid PET was not associated with a significant reduction in 12-month hospitalizations or ED visits. Rates of hospitalization were lower in patients with positive vs negative amyloid PET results.

Assessment of a Plasma Amyloid Probability Score to Estimate Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Findings Among Adults With Cognitive Impairment.

Importance: The diagnostic evaluation for Alzheimer disease may be improved by a blood-based diagnostic test identifying presence of brain amyloid plaque pathology. Objective: To determine the clinical performance associated with a diagnostic algorithm incorporating plasma amyloid-ß (Aß) 42:40 ratio, patient age, and apoE proteotype to identify brain amyloid status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study includes analysis from 2 independent cross-sectional cohort studies: the discovery cohort of the Plasma Test for Amyloidosis Risk Screening (PARIS) study, a prospective add-on to the Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning study, including 249 patients from 2018 to 2019, and MissionAD, a dataset of 437 biobanked patient samples obtained at screenings during 2016 to 2019. Data were analyzed from May to November 2020. Exposures: Amyloid detected in blood and by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the diagnostic performance of plasma Aß42:40 ratio, together with apoE proteotype and age, for identifying amyloid PET status, assessed by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: All 686 participants (mean [SD] age 73.2 [6.3] years; 368 [53.6%] men; 378 participants [55.1%] with amyloid PET findings) had symptoms of mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia. The AUC of plasma Aß42:40 ratio for PARIS was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.85) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.89) for MissionAD. Ratio cutoffs for Aß42:40 based on the Youden index were similar between cohorts (PARIS: 0.089; MissionAD: 0.092). A logistic regression model (LRM) incorporating Aß42:40 ratio, apoE proteotype, and age improved diagnostic performance within each cohort (PARIS: AUC, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.81-0.91]; MissionAD: AUC, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.86-0.92]), and overall accuracy was 78% (95% CI, 72%-83%) for PARIS and 83% (95% CI, 79%-86%) for MissionAD. The model developed on the prospectively collected samples from PARIS performed well on the MissionAD samples (AUC, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.91]; accuracy, 78% [95% CI, 74%-82%]). Training the LRM on combined cohorts yielded an AUC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91) and accuracy of 81% (95% CI, 78%-84%). The output of this LRM is the Amyloid Probability Score (APS). For clinical use, 2 APS cutoff values were established yielding 3 categories, with low, intermediate, and high likelihood of brain amyloid plaque pathology. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that this blood biomarker test could allow for distinguishing individuals with brain amyloid-positive PET findings from individuals with amyloid-negative PET findings and serve as an aid for Alzheimer disease diagnosis.

18F-FDG PET in Myocardial Viability Assessment: A Practical and Time-Efficient Protocol.

We assessed image quality using a practical and time-efficient protocol for intravenous glucose loading and insulin injection before administration of 18F-FDG for PET myocardial viability evaluation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: The metabolic preparation period (MPP) or optimal cardiac 18F-FDG uptake was determined from the time of intravenous infusion of 12.5 or 25 g of 50% dextrose to the time of 18F-FDG injection. Cardiac 18F-FDG image quality was evaluated according to a 5-point scoring system (from 5, excellent, to 1, nondiagnostic) by 2 independent observers. In cases of disagreement, consensus was achieved in a joint reading. Fifteen patients with ICM who underwent oral glucose loading and intravenous insulin administration served as a reference for MPP comparisons. Results: Fifty-nine consecutive patients (age, 63 ± 10 y; 48 men and 11 women) underwent rest 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the evaluation of myocardial viability. 18F-FDG image quality was scored as excellent in 42%, very good in 36%, good in 17%, fair in 3%, and nondiagnostic in 2%. When diabetic and nondiabetic patients were compared, the quality scores were excellent in 29% versus 76%, very good in 41% versus 18%, good in 24% versus 6%, fair in 4% versus 0%, and nondiagnostic in 2% versus 0%. The mean (±SD) quality score was 4.12 ± 0.95, and overall it was better in nondiabetic than in diabetic patients (4.71 ± 0.59 vs. 3.88 ± 0.96; P < 0.0001). Notably, the average MPP was significantly less with intravenous glucose loading than with oral glucose loading (51 ± 15 min vs. 132 ± 29 min; P < 0.0001), paralleled by higher insulin doses (6.3 ± 2.2 U vs. 2.0 ± 1.69 U; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Using a practical and time-efficient protocol for intravenous glucose loading and insulin administration before 18F-FDG injection reduces the MPP by 61% as compared with an oral glucose challenge and affords good-to-excellent image quality in 95% of ICM patients.

Radiologic Assessment of Groin Lymph Nodes in Pelvic Malignancies.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic involvement of groin nodes can alter radiation therapy planning for pelvic tumors. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can identify nodal metastases; however, interpretation of PET/CT-positive nodes can be complicated by non-malignant processes. We evaluated quantitative metrics as methods to identify groin metastases in patients with pelvic tumors by comparison with standard subjective interpretive criteria, with pathology as the reference standard. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with vulvar, vaginal, or anal cancers who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT before pathologic evaluation of groin nodes between 2007 and 2017. Because patho-radiologic correlation was not possible for every node, one index node identified on imaging was selected for each groin. For each index node, standardized uptake value measurements, total lesion glycolysis, metabolic tumor volume, CT-based volume, and short and long axes were measured. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify metrics predictive for pathologically positive groins and generate a probabilistic model. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for the model were compared with clinical interpretation from the diagnostic report via a Wald's χ2 test. RESULTS: Of 55 patients identified for analysis, 75 groins had pathologic evaluation resulting in 75 index groin nodes for analysis with 35 groins pathologically positive for malignancy. Logistic regression identified mean standardized-uptake-value (50% threshold) and short-axis length as the most predictive imaging metrics for metastatic nodal involvement. The probabilistic model performed better at predicting pathologic involvement compared with standard clinical interpretation on analysis (AUC 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97 vs 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; p<0.01). DISCUSSION: Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting groin nodal metastases in patients with pelvic tumors may be improved with the use of quantitative metrics. Improving prediction of nodal metastases can aid with appropriate selection of patients for pathologic node evaluation and guide radiation volumes and doses.

Association of Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography With Subsequent Change in Clinical Management Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia.

Importance: Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) detects amyloid plaques in the brain, a core neuropathological feature of Alzheimer disease. Objective: To determine if amyloid PET is associated with subsequent changes in the management of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia of uncertain etiology. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) study was a single-group, multisite longitudinal study that assessed the association between amyloid PET and subsequent changes in clinical management for Medicare beneficiaries with MCI or dementia. Participants were required to meet published appropriate use criteria stating that etiology of cognitive impairment was unknown, Alzheimer disease was a diagnostic consideration, and knowledge of PET results was expected to change diagnosis and management. A total of 946 dementia specialists at 595 US sites enrolled 16 008 patients between February 2016 and September 2017. Patients were followed up through January 2018. Dementia specialists documented their diagnosis and management plan before PET and again 90 (±30) days after PET. Exposures: Participants underwent amyloid PET at 343 imaging centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in management between the pre- and post-PET visits, as assessed by a composite outcome that included Alzheimer disease drug therapy, other drug therapy, and counseling about safety and future planning. The study was powered to detect a 30% or greater change in the MCI and dementia groups. One of 2 secondary end points is reported: the proportion of changes in diagnosis (from Alzheimer disease to non-Alzheimer disease and vice versa) between pre- and post-PET visits. Results: Among 16 008 registered participants, 11 409 (71.3%) completed study procedures and were included in the analysis (median age, 75 years [interquartile range, 71-80]; 50.9% women; 60.5% with MCI). Amyloid PET results were positive in 3817 patients with MCI (55.3%) and 3154 patients with dementia (70.1%). The composite end point changed in 4159 of 6905 patients with MCI (60.2% [95% CI, 59.1%-61.4%]) and 2859 of 4504 patients with dementia (63.5% [95% CI, 62.1%-64.9%]), significantly exceeding the 30% threshold in each group (P < .001, 1-sided). The etiologic diagnosis changed from Alzheimer disease to non-Alzheimer disease in 2860 of 11 409 patients (25.1% [95% CI, 24.3%-25.9%]) and from non-Alzheimer disease to Alzheimer disease in 1201 of 11 409 (10.5% [95% CI, 10.0%-11.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries with MCI or dementia of uncertain etiology evaluated by dementia specialists, the use of amyloid PET was associated with changes in clinical management within 90 days. Further research is needed to determine whether amyloid PET is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02420756.

Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Prospective Assessment in 2 Multicenter Trials.

UNLABELLED: PET/CT with the glucose analog (18)F-FDG has several potential applications for monitoring tumor response to therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A prerequisite for many of these applications is detailed knowledge of the repeatability of quantitative parameters derived from (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies. METHODS: The repeatability of the (18)F-FDG signal was evaluated in 2 prospective multicenter trials. Patients with advanced NSCLC (tumor stage III-IV) underwent two (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies while not receiving therapy. Tumor (18)F-FDG uptake was quantified by measurement of the maximum standardized uptake value within a lesion (SUVmax) and the average SUV within a small volume of interest around the site of maximum uptake (SUVpeak). Analysis was performed for the lesion in the chest with the highest (18)F-FDG uptake and a size of at least 2 cm (target lesion) as well as for up to 6 additional lesions per patient. Repeatability was assessed by Bland-Altman plots and calculation of 95% repeatability coefficients (RCs) of the log-transformed SUV differences. RESULTS: Test-retest repeatability was assessed in 74 patients (34 from the ACRIN 6678 trial and 40 from the Merck MK-0646-008 trial). SUVpeak was 11.57 ± 7.89 g/mL for the ACRIN trial and 6.89 ± 3.02 for the Merck trial. The lower and upper RCs were -28% (95% confidence interval [CI], -35% to -23%) and +39% (95% CI, 31% to 54%) in the ACRIN trial, indicating that a decrease of SUVpeak by more than 28% or an increase by more than 39% has a probability of less than 2.5%. The corresponding RCs from the Merck trial were -35% (95% CI, -42% to -29%) and +53% (95% CI, 41% to 72%). Repeatability was similar for SUVmax of the target lesion, averaged SUVmax, and averaged SUVpeak of up to 6 lesions per patient. CONCLUSION: The variability of repeated measurements of tumor (18)F-FDG uptake in patients with NSCLC is somewhat larger than previously reported in smaller single-center studies but comparable to that of gastrointestinal malignancies in a previous multicenter trial. The variability of measurements supports the definitions of tumor response according to PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors.

Intended versus inferred care after PET performed for initial staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry.

UNLABELLED: The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) collected data on intended management before and after PET in cancer patients. We have previously reported that PET was associated with a change in intended management of about one third of patients and was consistent across cancer types. It is uncertain if intended management plans reflect the actual care these patients received. One approach to assess actual care received is using administrative claims to categorize the type and timing of clinical services. METHODS: NOPR data from 2006 to 2008 were linked to Medicare claims for consenting patients aged 65 y or older undergoing initial-staging PET scanning for bladder, ovarian, pancreatic, small cell lung, or stomach cancers. We determined the 60-d agreement between claims-inferred care and NOPR treatment plans. RESULTS: Patients (n = 4,661) were assessed, and 30%-52% had metastatic disease. Planned treatments were about two-thirds monotherapy, of which 46% was systemic therapy only, and one-third combinations. Claims paid by 60 d confirmed the NOPR plan of any systemic therapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in 79.3%, 64.7%, and 63.6%, respectively. Single-mode plans were much more often confirmed: systemic therapy in more than 85% of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and small cell lung cancers and surgery in more than 73% of those with bladder, pancreatic, and stomach cancers. Intended combination treatments had claims for both in only 28% of patients receiving surgery-based combinations and in 55% receiving chemoradiotherapy. About 90% of patients with NOPR-planned systemic therapy had evaluation or management claims from a medical oncologist. An age of less than 75 y was associated more often with confirmation of chemotherapy, less often for radiotherapy but not with confirmation of surgery. Performance status or comorbidity did not explain confirmation rates within action categories, but confirmation rates were higher if the referrer specialized in the planned treatment. CONCLUSION: Claims confirmations of NOPR intent for initial staging were widely variable but were higher than previously reported for restaging PET, suggesting that measuring change in intended management is a reasonable method for assessing the impact diagnostic tests have on actual care.

Intended versus inferred management after PET for cancer restaging: analysis of Medicare claims linked to a coverage with evidence development registry.

BACKGROUND: The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) ascertained changes in the intended management of cancer patients using questionnaire data obtained before and after positron emission tomography (PET) under Medicare's coverage with evidence development policy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the concordance between intended care plans and care received as ascertained through administrative claims data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analysis of linked data of NOPR participants from 2006 to 2008 and their corresponding Medicare claims. SUBJECTS: Consenting patients aged older than 65 years having their first PET for restaging of bladder, kidney, ovarian, pancreas, prostate, small cell lung, or stomach cancer. MEASURES: : Agreement (positive predictive values and κ) between NOPR post-PET intended management plans for treatment (systemic therapy, radiotherapy, surgery, or combinations), biopsy, or watching as compared to claims-inferred care 30 days after PET. RESULTS: A total of 8460 patients with linked data were assessed. A total of 43.5% had metastatic disease and 45.3% had treatment planned (predominantly systemic therapy only), 11.1% biopsy and 43.5% watching. Claims-confirmed intended plans (positive predictive value) for single-mode systemic therapy in 62.0%, radiation in 66.0%, surgery in 45.6%, and biopsy in 55.7%. A total of 25.7% of patients with a plan of watching had treatment claims. By cancer type, κ ranged for systemic therapy only from 0.17 to 0.40 and for watching from 0.21 to 0.41. Agreement rates varied by cancer types but were minimally associated with patient age, performance status, comorbidity, or stage. CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly cancer patients undergoing PET for restaging, there was moderate concordance between their physicians' planned management and claims-inferred actions within a narrow time window. When higher accuracy levels are required in future coverage with evidence development studies, alternative designs will be needed.

Geographic and sociodemographic disparities in PET use by Medicare beneficiaries with cancer.

PURPOSE: PET use for cancer care has increased unevenly, possibly because of regional health care market characteristics or underlying population characteristics. The aim of this study was to examine variation in advanced imaging use among individuals with cancer in relation to population and hospital service area (HSA) characteristics. METHODS: A retrospective national study of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with diagnoses of 1 of 5 cancers covered by Medicare for PET (2004-2008) was conducted. Crude and adjusted rates of PET, CT, and MRI were estimated for HSAs and sociodemographic subgroups. Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess the effects of race/ethnicity, area-level income, and HSA-level physician supply and spending on imaging utilization. RESULTS: On the basis of an annual average of 116,452 beneficiaries with cancer, adjusted PET rates (imaging days per person-year) showed significantly higher use for whites compared with blacks in both 2004 (whites, 0.35 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.36]; blacks, 0.31 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.33]) and 2008 (whites, 0.64 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.65]; blacks, 0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.59]). This trend was similar for the highest quartile of group-level median household income but was opposite for CT use, with blacks having higher rates than whites. The highest Medicare-spending HSAs had significantly higher adjusted PET rates compared with lower spending areas (0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.60] vs 0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.71] imaging days/person-year). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PET among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer increased from 2004 to 2008, with higher rates observed among whites, among higher socioeconomic groups, and in higher Medicare spending areas. Sociodemographic differences in advanced imaging use are modality specific.

Assessment of progesterone receptors in breast carcinoma by PET with 21-18F-fluoro-16α,17α-[(R)-(1'-α-furylmethylidene)dioxy]-19-norpregn-4-ene-3,20-dione.

UNLABELLED: This first-in-human study was designed to evaluate the safety and dosimetry of the progesterone analog 21-(18)F-fluoro-16α,17α-[(R)-(1'-α-furylmethylidene)dioxy]-19-norpregn-4-ene-3,20-dione ((18)F-FFNP), as well the feasibility of imaging tumor progesterone receptors (PRs) by PET in breast cancer. METHODS: Women with breast cancer underwent PET with (18)F-FFNP. Tumor (18)F-FFNP uptake was assessed semiquantitatively by determining maximum standardized uptake value and tumor-to-normal breast (T/N) activity ratio and by Logan graphical analysis. The PET results were correlated with estrogen receptor (ER) and PR status, assessed by in vitro assays of the tumor tissue. The biodistribution of (18)F-FFNP was measured in patients by whole-body PET, and human dosimetry was estimated. RESULTS: Twenty patients with 22 primary breast cancers (16 PR-positive [PR+] and 6 PR-negative [PR-]) were evaluated. Tumor maximum standardized uptake value was not significantly different in PR+ and PR- cancers (mean ± SD, 2.5 ± 0.9 vs. 2.0 ± 1.3, P = 0.386), but the T/N ratio was significantly greater in the PR+ cancers (2.6 ± 0.9 vs. 1.5 ± 0.3, P = 0.001). In addition, there was a significant correlation between distribution volume ratio and T/N ratio (r = 0.89; P = 0.001) but not between distribution volume ratio and either PR status or standardized uptake value, likely because of small sample size. On the basis of whole-body PET data in 12 patients, the gallbladder appeared to be the dose-limiting organ, with an average radiation dose of 0.113 mGy/MBq. The whole-body dose was 0.015 mGy/MBq, and the effective dose was 0.020 mSv/MBq. No adverse effects of (18)F-FFNP were encountered. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FFNP PET is a safe, noninvasive means for evaluating tumor PRs in vivo in patients with breast cancer. The relatively small absorbed doses to normal organs allow for the safe injection of up to 440 MBq of (18)F-FFNP.

Growth in the use of PET for six cancer types after coverage by medicare: additive or replacement?

BACKGROUND: In July 2001, PET became a covered service for Medicare beneficiaries when used for the diagnosis, staging, and restaging of non-small-cell lung, esophageal, colorectal, and head and neck cancers as well as lymphoma and melanoma. Whether physicians use PET as a replacement for or in addition to CT, MRI, or bone scintigraphy (BS) is uncertain. METHODS: A 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged > 64 years from 2004 through 2008 was used. Annually for each cancer type, a cohort of patients was created defined as having at least one admission with a primary cancer diagnosis or two nonhospital claims with a cancer diagnosis ≥7 days apart per calendar year. Each year, imaging claims and claim-days were counted by modality and cancer type. The sequence of PET use was examined as before, after, or instead of other imaging. RESULTS: About 125,000 beneficiaries (2.5% of the cohort) met the cancer definition each year. In 2008, the combined annual imaging days per person-year were 2.3 for CT, 0.49 for MRI, 0.70 for PET, and 0.13 for BS. The annual rates of imaging from 2004 to 2008 increased by 0.5% for CT, 3.2% for MRI, and 18.0% for PET (range, 14.6%-19.9% by cancer type) and decreased by 12.7% for BS. The growth in PET use was not associated with meaningful changes in body CT. In 2007 and 2008, body CT preceded PET within 30 days in about half of patients, whereas PET preceded CT in only 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Several years after its introduction, PET continued to grow rapidly, with evidence that it is replacing BS. Growth of PET occurred without evidence of a decline in body CT. About half of PET use occurred shortly after body CT, suggesting an additive or final arbiter role.

Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities.

UNLABELLED: Quantitative imaging biomarkers could speed the development of new treatments for unmet medical needs and improve routine clinical care. However, it is not clear how the various regulatory and nonregulatory (eg, reimbursement) processes (often referred to as pathways) relate, nor is it clear which data need to be collected to support these different pathways most efficiently, given the time- and cost-intensive nature of doing so. The purpose of this article is to describe current thinking regarding these pathways emerging from diverse stakeholders interested and active in the definition, validation, and qualification of quantitative imaging biomarkers and to propose processes to facilitate the development and use of quantitative imaging biomarkers. A flexible framework is described that may be adapted for each imaging application, providing mechanisms that can be used to develop, assess, and evaluate relevant biomarkers. From this framework, processes can be mapped that would be applicable to both imaging product development and to quantitative imaging biomarker development aimed at increasing the effectiveness and availability of quantitative imaging. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100800/-/DC1.

18F-FDG PET/CT for early response assessment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: poor predictive value of international harmonization project interpretation.

UNLABELLED: PET using (18)F-FDG has prognostic value when performed at the completion of initial chemotherapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). (18)F-FDG PET may also be predictive of outcome when performed during the treatment course of DLBCL, but robust prospective studies and standardization of (18)F-FDG PET interpretation in this setting are lacking. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients with advanced-stage DLBCL were treated with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy, and (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed after cycle 2 or 3 and at the end of therapy. The (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans were interpreted according to the International Harmonization Project for Response Criteria in Lymphoma, and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) of the most (18)F-FDG-avid lesions was recorded. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled, and all underwent interim (18)F-FDG PET/CT. At a median follow-up of 33.9 mo, the positive predictive value (PPV) of interim (18)F-FDG PET/CT for relapse or progression was 42%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 77%. Interim (18)F-FDG PET/CT was significantly associated with event-free survival (P = 0.017) and with progression-free survival (P = 0.04) but not with overall survival (P = 0.08). End-of-therapy (18)F-FDG PET/CT had high PPV and NPV (71% and 80%, respectively) and was significantly associated with event-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival (P < 0.001). SUV measurements did not discriminate patients who relapsed or progressed from those who remained in remission. CONCLUSION: When performed after 2 cycles of immunochemotherapy and interpreted according to International Harmonization Project criteria, early response assessment with PET/CT has a high NPV but low PPV in patients with advanced-stage DLBCL. Prospective trials are required to validate different criteria for the interpretation of interim (18)F-FDG PET/CT and establish the role of interim (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the management of patients with DLBCL.

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.

PURPOSE: Under Medicare's Coverage with Evidence Development policy, positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and PET became covered services for previously noncovered cancer indications if prospective registry data were collected. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) was developed to meet these coverage requirements and to assess how PET affects care decisions. METHODS: The NOPR collected questionnaire data from referring physicians on intended patient management before and after PET. After 1 year, the cohort included data from 22,975 studies (83.7% PET/CT) from 1,178 centers. The numbers of scans performed for diagnosis of suspected cancer (or unknown primary cancer), initial cancer staging, restaging, and suspected cancer recurrence were approximately equal. Prostatic, pancreatic and ovarian cancers represented approximately 30% of cases. RESULTS: If PET data were not available, the most common pre-PET plan would have been other imaging. In these patients, the post-PET strategies changed to watching in 37% and treatment in 48%. In patients with planned biopsy before PET, biopsy was avoided in approximately 70%. If the pre-PET strategy was treatment, the post-PET strategy involved a major change in type in 8.7% and goal in 5.6%. When intended management was classified as either treatment or nontreatment, the post-PET plan was three-fold more likely to lead to treatment than nontreatment (28.3% v 8.2%; odds ratio = 3.4; 95% CI, 3.2 to 3.6). Overall, physicians changed their intended management in 36.5% (95% CI, 35.9 to 37.2) of cases after PET. CONCLUSION: This large, prospective, nationally representative registry of elderly cancer patients found that physicians often change their intended management on the basis of PET scan results across the full spectrum of its potential uses.

The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): design and analysis plan.

UNLABELLED: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has provided a mechanism for expanded coverage of selected promising technologies under its "coverage with evidence development (CED)" policy. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) was designed to address the CED requirements for collection of clinical and demographic data to allow for CMS coverage of PET for previously noncovered cancer types and indications. The NOPR opened in May 2006. This report reviews the NOPR's data collection and analysis plan. METHODS: NOPR is a nationwide prospective internet-based registry. All PET facilities that are participating providers in the Medicare program may enroll in NOPR. The PET facility is responsible for collecting and entering patient data into the NOPR database through a Web application at: (http://www.cancerPETregistry.org/). Data are collected from the requesting physician on Pre-PET and Post-PET forms. The primary research goal is to assess the effect of PET on referring physicians' plans of intended patient management across the spectrum of expanded cancer indications (diagnosis, staging, restaging, suspected recurrence, and treatment monitoring). The NOPR investigators will have access to data only on cases in which both the patient and the referring physician have consented to allow their data to be used for research. Data will be analyzed and compared in aggregate for all cancers by category (e.g., staging) and then for specific high-impact types and indications (e.g., staging of pancreatic cancer) when 200 patients have been accrued to a specific combination or after the NOPR has been operational for 1 y. CONCLUSION: The NOPR will allow an accurate assessment of the impact of PET on intended patient management across a wide spectrum of cancer indications.

The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the recent expansion of Medicare coverage for 18F-FDG PET for certain cancer indications under the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' new Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) policy and to describe the specific operational mechanics of the National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR). CONCLUSION: The NOPR will make possible a more accurate assessment of the actual influence of PET on patient management across a wide spectrum of cancer indications. By linking access to PET for virtually all Medicare beneficiaries to the collection of clinically valuable evidence, the NOPR represents the cutting edge of the CED approach.