Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur Radiol ; 30(6): 3101-3112, 2020 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32065287

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Detection of peritoneal metastases (PM) is key in the staging and management of gastrointestinal and ovarian cancer patients. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic performance of CT, PET(CT), and (DW)MRI in detecting PM. METHODS: A literature search in Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Scopus was performed (January 1997-May 2018) to identify studies reporting on the accuracy of imaging PM in the diagnostic workup of gastrointestinal or ovarian cancers. Inclusion criteria were region-based or patient-based studies comprising > 15 patients, surgery/histology/radiological follow-up as a reference standard, and sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 contingency table. Two observers performed data extraction. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model and hierarchical summary operating curves (HSROC) were generated. RESULTS: Of 3457 citations retrieved, twenty-four articles met all inclusion criteria. Thirty-seven datasets could be extracted for analysis including 20 for CT, 10 for PET(CT), and 7 for (DW)MRI. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR for the detection of PM for region-based studies for CT were 68% (CI, 46-84%), 88%(CI, 81-93%), and 15.9 (CI, 4.4-58.0) respectively; 80% (CI, 57-92%), 90% (CI, 80-96%), and 36.5 (CI, 6.7-199.5) for PET(CT), respectively; 92% (CI, 84-96%), 85% (CI, 78-91%), 63.3 (CI, 31.5-127.3) for (DW)MRI. In the patient-based group, not enough studies were included to make a pooled analysis for (DW)MRI and PET(CT). CONCLUSION: (DW)MRI and PET(CT) showed comparable diagnostic performance for the detection of peritoneal metastases in ovarian and gastrointestinal cancer patients. Since MRI is more widely available than PET(CT) in clinical practice, this potentially is the imaging method of choice in most centers in the future. KEY POINTS: • Detection of peritoneal metastases plays an important role in the accurate staging of cancer patients, however, there is no accepted reference standard for the imaging of peritoneal metastases • This meta-analysis shows that (DW)MRI provided the highest sensitivity for the detection of peritoneal metastases in ovarian and gastrointestinal cancer patients • Although (DW)MRI and PET(CT) show a comparable overall diagnostic performance, (DW)MRI seems to be the imaging method of choice since it is more available in daily practice than PET(CT).


Assuntos
Imagem de Difusão por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Neoplasias Peritoneais/diagnóstico , Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons combinada à Tomografia Computadorizada/métodos , Radiografia/métodos , Humanos , Metástase Neoplásica , Neoplasias Peritoneais/secundário
2.
Health Policy ; 123(12): 1185-1198, 2019 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31718855

RESUMO

A large number of medical devices (MDs) is available in Europe. Procedures for market approval and reimbursement have been adopted over recent years to promote accelerating patient access to innovative MDs. However, there remains uncertainty and non-transparency regarding these procedures. We provide a structured overview of market approval and reimbursement procedures and practices regarding access to MDs in the EU. Market approval procedures were found to be uniformly described. Data on reimbursement procedures and practices was both heterogeneous and incomplete. Time to MD access was mainly determined by reimbursement procedures. The influence of the patient on time to access was not reported. Prescription practices varied among device types. Barriers to and facilitators of early patient access that set the agenda for policy implications were also analyzed. Barriers were caused by unclear European legislation, complex market approval procedures, lack of data collection, inconsistency in evidence requirements between countries, regional reimbursement and provision, and factors influencing physicians' prescription including the device costs, waiting times and hospital-physician relationships. Facilitators were: available evidence that meets country-specific requirements for reimbursement, diagnosis-related groups, additional payments and research programs. Further research needs to focus on creating a complete overview of reimbursement procedures and practices by extracting further information from sources such as grey literature and interviews with professionals, and defining clear criteria to objectify time to access.


Assuntos
Equipamentos e Provisões/provisão & distribuição , Legislação de Dispositivos Médicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Mecanismo de Reembolso/legislação & jurisprudência , Equipamentos e Provisões/economia , União Europeia , Humanos , Marketing/legislação & jurisprudência , Marketing/métodos , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA