| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | RSS | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Contribution |
1 Department of Internal Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia; 2 Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; 3 Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; 4 Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan; 5 American College of Radiology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and 6 Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology and the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Bruce E. Hillner, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1101 E. Marshall St., Room 7013, Richmond, VA 23298-0170. E-mail: Hillner{at}vcu.edu
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.
Key Words: PET • cancer • registry • prospective studies
COPYRIGHT © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.
Related articles in JNM:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. K. Buck, K. Herrmann, T. Stargardt, T. Dechow, B. J. Krause, and J. Schreyogg Economic Evaluation of PET and PET/CT in Oncology: Evidence and Methodologic Approaches J. Nucl. Med. Technol., March 1, 2010; 38(1): 6 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. K. Buck, K. Herrmann, T. Stargardt, T. Dechow, B. J. Krause, and J. Schreyogg Economic Evaluation of PET and PET/CT in Oncology: Evidence and Methodologic Approaches J. Nucl. Med., March 1, 2010; 51(3): 401 - 412. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. E. Coleman, B. E. Hillner, A. F. Shields, F. Duan, D. A. Merlino, L. G. Hanna, S. H. Stine, and B. A. Siegel PET and PET/CT Reports: Observations from the National Oncologic PET Registry J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2010; 51(1): 158 - 163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. S. Kibel, F. Dehdashti, M. D. Katz, A. P. Klim, R. L. Grubb, P. A. Humphrey, C. Siegel, D. Cao, F. Gao, and B. A. Siegel Prospective Study of [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Staging of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Carcinoma J. Clin. Oncol., September 10, 2009; 27(26): 4314 - 4320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. A. Podoloff, D. W. Ball, E. Ben-Josef, A. B. Benson III, S. J. Cohen, R. E. Coleman, D. Delbeke, M. Ho, D. H. Ilson, G. P. Kalemkerian, et al. NCCN Task Force: Clinical Utility of PET in a Variety of Tumor Types J Natl Compr Canc Netw, June 1, 2009; 7(Suppl_2): S-1 - S-23. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. E. Hillner, B. A. Siegel, A. F. Shields, D. Liu, I. F. Gareen, E. Hunt, and R. E. Coleman Relationship Between Cancer Type and Impact of PET and PET/CT on Intended Management: Findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2008; 49(12): 1928 - 1935. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. N. Levine and J. A. Julian Registries That Show Efficacy: Good, but Not Good Enough J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2008; 26(33): 5316 - 5319. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. L. Schwartz, H. A. Macapinlac, and R. S. Weber FDG-PET Staging of Head and Neck Cancer--Can Improved Imaging Lead to Improved Treatment? J Natl Cancer Inst, May 21, 2008; 100(10): 688 - 689. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. E. Hillner, B. A. Siegel, D. Liu, A. F. Shields, I. F. Gareen, L. Hanna, S. H. Stine, and R. E. Coleman 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., May 1, 2008; 26(13): 2155 - 2161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | RSS | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY | THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE |
