Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleClinical Investigations

Intended Versus Inferred Care After PET Performed for Initial Staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry

Bruce E. Hillner, Anna N. Tosteson, Tor D. Tosteson, Qianfei Wang, Yunjie Song, Lucy G. Hanna and Barry A. Siegel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine December 2013, 54 (12) 2024-2031; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.123430
Bruce E. Hillner
1Department of Internal Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anna N. Tosteson
2The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tor D. Tosteson
2The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Qianfei Wang
2The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yunjie Song
2The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lucy G. Hanna
3Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barry A. Siegel
4Division of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology and the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Frequency of chemotherapy claims and E&M claims by cancer type among subjects for whom NOPR intended-management plan was chemotherapy. We excluded ovarian cancer because gynecologic oncologists in addition to medical oncologists often give systemic therapies.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    NOPR Cohort Clinical Characteristics for PET Imaging Performed for Initial Staging

    Cancer type
    CharacteristicCombinedBladderOvarianPancreaticSCLStomach
    Patients in cohort (n)4,6611,1783091,2507521,172
    Age (y)
     Mean74.876.473.073.773.675.7
     Interquartile range72–7771–8168–7768–7869–7770–81
    Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (%)
     0, asymptomatic26.632.828.223.419.727.7
     1, symptomatic, fully ambulatory58.953.260.262.862.557.8
     2 or higher14.514.011.713.817.814.4
    Post-PET summary stage (%)
     No residual disease6.89.014.94.50.98.8
     Local only30.336.920.730.514.436.2
     Regional (or nodal) diseases19.816.317.219.427.019.7
     Metastatic disease, single site11.58.28.715.513.410.0
     Metastatic disease, multiple sites28.026.533.326.742.220.2
     Not recorded3.63.15.23.42.15.1
    Comorbidity index score (%)
     036.336.355.337.825.037.0
     1 or 246.942.336.649.356.145.8
     ≥316.821.48.113.018.917.2
    Referring physician specialty (%)
     Medical oncology55.155.957.054.954.954.2
     Internal medicine*11.25.25.89.819.814.4
     Radiation oncology9.012.51.311.511.03.5
     Surgery7.20.92.910.32.514.3
     Urology3.513.70.30.10.00.1
     Gynecology/gynecologic oncology1.50.319.70.20.00.2
     Other12.511.512.913.111.713.3
    60-d post-PET mortality (%)10.06.84.812.612.810.0
    Pre-PET plan (%)
     Watching1.92.43.21.71.02.0
     Additional imaging36.236.240.832.141.636.0
     Biopsy8.09.56.89.64.87.2
     Treatment53.952.049.256.652.754.9
    • ↵* Internal medicine: sum of all subspecialties other than hematology and oncology.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    NOPR-Intended Management Plan After PET for Initial Staging by Cancer Type

    Cancer type
    NOPR-intended managementAllBladderOvarianPancreaticSCLStomach
    Patients4,6611,1783091,2507521,172
    Watching457 (9.8)149 (12.6)41 (13.5)99 (7.9)38 (5.1)130 (11.1)
    Biopsy341 (7.3)101 (8.6)24 (0.6)90 (7.2)28 (3.7)98 (8.4)
    Treatment3,864 (82.9)928 (78.8)245 (79.3)1,061 (84.9)686 (91.2)944 (80.6)
    Treatment details*
     Systemic therapy only1,767 (45.7)387 (41.7)169 (69.0)530 (50.0)349 (50.9)332 (35.2)
     Radiotherapy only250 (6.5)111 (12.0)6 (2.4)64 (6.0)41 (6.0)28 (3.0)
     Surgery only554 (14.3)129 (13.9)15 (6.1)135 (12.7)11 (1.6)264 (28.0)
     Combination therapies1,293 (33.4)301 (32.4)55 (22.4)332 (31.3)285 (41.5)320 (33.9)
     Plans with systemic therapy3,030 (78.4)676 (72.8)223 (91.0)854 (80.5)629 (91.7)648 (68.6)
     Plans with radiotherapy1,293 (33.5)337 (36.3)23 (9.4)362 (34.1)321 (46.8)250 (26.5)
     Plans with surgery1,031 (26.7)248 (26.7)57 (23.3)242 (22.8)26 (3.8)458 (48.5)
    • ↵* Plans with therapy are sum of plans with single or combination therapy.

    • Data in parentheses are percentages.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Agreement Measurements by Type of Intended Therapy at 60 Days After PET

    PPVRaw agreementKappa
    Post-PET planned therapy and cancer typeNOPR plan (n)%95% confidence interval%95% confidence intervalκ95% confidence interval
    Any systemic therapy
     All3,03079.377.9–80.874.172.7–75.40.400.37–0.43
     Bladder67679.075.9–82.173.075.6–79.00.420.36–0.48
     Ovarian22386.181.6–90.682.578.1–86.90.520.41–0.64
     Pancreatic85479.376.6–82.072.870.3–75.40.330.27–0.39
     SCL62989.587.1–91.983.881.2–86.50.340.24–0.43
     Stomach64867.664.0–71.267.664.8–70.40.340.29–0.40
    Any radiation
     All1,29364.762.1–67.380.879.6–82.00.530.51–0.56
     Bladder33768.863.9–73.883.381.1–85.50.600.55–0.65
     Ovarian2330.411.6–49.291.688.4–94.80.320.12–0.53
     Pancreatic36270.265.5–74.982.880.6–84.90.590.54–0.64
     SCL32169.264.1–74.272.569.3–75.80.440.38–0.51
     Stomach25048.842.6–55.079.076.5–81.40.390.32–0.45
    Any surgery
     All1,03163.660.7–66.677.976.7–79.20.430.40–0.46
     Bladder24856.950.7–63.075.873.2–78.30.360.30–0.42
     Ovarian5752.639.7–65.675.969.6–79.30.310.19–0.44
     Pancreatic24259.953.7–66.177.874.1–78.80.390.33–0.45
     SCL2650.030.8–69.285.482.6–87.70.150.06–0.24
     Stomach45871.467.3–75.575.770.3–75.40.500.45–0.56
    • Agreement: sum of true-positive + true-negatives.

    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    Impact of Time Interval After PET on Claims Confirmation (PPV) of Post-PET Plan

    Cancer type and treatment categories in Post-PET PlanPatients (n)Claims confirmed at 60 d (%)Claims confirmed at 180 d (%)
    Bladder
     Chemotherapy/immunotherapy only38781.184.2
     Chemotherapy and radiotherapy18262.169.2
     Surgery only12973.690.7
     Surgery and (chemotherapy or radiotherapy)11723.560.5
    Pancreatic
     Chemotherapy only53085.388.7
     Chemotherapy and radiotherapy22553.869.8
     Surgery only13574.180.0
     Surgery and (chemotherapy or radiotherapy)10736.451.4
    Stomach
     Chemotherapy only33269.678.2
     Chemotherapy and radiotherapy12647.661.9
     Surgery only26480.386.4
     Surgery and (chemotherapy or radiotherapy)19431.460.8
    Ovarian
     Chemotherapy only16990.593.5
    SCL
     Chemotherapy only34988.889.7
     Chemotherapy and radiotherapy27062.673.0
    • Excluded plans with < 100 patients.

    • View popup
    TABLE 5

    Factors Associated with Agreement of Treatment Plan and Claims for Treatment

    Chemotherapy (n = 3,030)Radiotherapy (n = 1,293)Surgery (n = 1,031)
    FactorsAgreementPAgreement RPAgreementP
    Unadjusted79.364.763.6
    Adjusted agreement range*
     Age ≤ or > 75 y75.5–84.7<0.000165.4–71.70.00764.8–66.20.846
     Performance status77.2–82.60.1466.0–69.80.74457.7–68.80.019
     Comorbidity80.0–81.90.60465.3–71.50.19461.7–68.40.197
     Cancer type69.2–87.1<0.000130.9–77.9<0.000157.2–72.5<0.0001
     Stage70.5–84.00.00147.6–73.2<0.000143.8–72.8<0.0001
     Specialty70.2–80.90.00125.7–89.4<0.000157.3–82.4<0.0001
     Pre-PET plan74.0–83.40.17867.8–83.70.80360.0–72.80.065
    • ↵* Logistic regression was used to assess factors affecting proportion of individual plans agreeing with subsequent claims. Factor categories assessed were age (<75, >75 y), performance status (0, 1, ≥2), comorbidity (0, 1 or 2, 3+), cancer type (bladder, ovarian, pancreatic, SCL, stomach), provider specialty (medical oncology, gynecology, internal medicine, radiation oncology, surgery, and other), and pre-PET plan (image, biopsy, treatment, watch). On basis of logistic regression model, adjusted percentage agreements were calculated for each category and range calculated.

    • Complete details of individual factor agreements are available in Supplemental Table 2.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 54 (12)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 54, Issue 12
December 1, 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Intended Versus Inferred Care After PET Performed for Initial Staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Intended Versus Inferred Care After PET Performed for Initial Staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry
Bruce E. Hillner, Anna N. Tosteson, Tor D. Tosteson, Qianfei Wang, Yunjie Song, Lucy G. Hanna, Barry A. Siegel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Dec 2013, 54 (12) 2024-2031; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.123430

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Intended Versus Inferred Care After PET Performed for Initial Staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry
Bruce E. Hillner, Anna N. Tosteson, Tor D. Tosteson, Qianfei Wang, Yunjie Song, Lucy G. Hanna, Barry A. Siegel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Dec 2013, 54 (12) 2024-2031; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.123430
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Intended Versus Inferred Treatment After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry
  • Techniques, Benefits, and Challenges of PET-MR
  • Impact of 18F-Fluoride PET on Intended Management of Patients with Cancers Other Than Prostate Cancer: Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility of Ultra-Low-Activity 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging Using a Long–Axial-Field-of-View PET/CT System
  • Cardiac Presynaptic Sympathetic Nervous Function Evaluated by Cardiac PET in Patients with Chronotropic Incompetence Without Heart Failure
  • Validation and Evaluation of a Vendor-Provided Head Motion Correction Algorithm on the uMI Panorama PET/CT System
Show more Clinical Investigations

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Positron Emission Tomography
  • cohort studies
  • Medicare
  • medical record linkage
  • health services research
  • neoplasm staging
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire