Skip to main content

Main menu

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

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

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

Advanced Search

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

Intended Versus Inferred Treatment After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry

Bruce E. Hillner, Lucy Hanna, Rajesh Makineni, Fenghai Duan, Anthony F. Shields, Rathan M. Subramaniam, Ilana Gareen and Barry A. Siegel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine March 2018, 59 (3) 421-426; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.205047
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
Lucy Hanna
2The Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rajesh Makineni
2The Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fenghai Duan
2The Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
3Department of Biostatistics, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony F. Shields
4Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rathan M. Subramaniam
5Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, and Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ilana Gareen
2The Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
6Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, 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
7Division 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
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

We have previously reported that PET with 18F-fluoride (NaF PET) for assessment of osseous metastatic disease led to changes in intended management in a substantial fraction of patients with prostate or other types of cancer participating in the National Oncologic PET Registry. This study was performed to assess the concordance of intended patient management after NaF PET and inferred management based on analysis of Medicare claims. Methods: We analyzed linked post–NaF PET data of consenting National Oncologic PET Registry participants age 65 y or older from 2011 to 2014 and their corresponding Medicare claims. Post–NaF PET treatment plans, including combinations of 2 modes of therapy, were assessed for their concordance with clinical actions inferred from Medicare claims. NaF PET studies were stratified by indication (initial staging [IS] or suspected first osseous metastasis [FOM]) and cancer type (prostate, lung, or other cancers). Agreement was assessed between post–NaF PET intended management plans for treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, or systemic therapy) within 90 d for lung and 180 d for prostate or other cancers, and for watching (the absence of treatment claims for ≥60 d) as compared with claims-inferred care. Results: Actions after 9,898 scans were assessed. After NaF PET for IS, there was claims agreement for planned surgery in 76.0% (19/25) lung, 75.4% (98/130) other cancers, and 58.9% (298/506) prostate cancer. Claims confirmed chemotherapy plans after NaF PET done for IS or FOM in 81.0% and 73.5% for lung cancer (n = 148 and 136) and 69.4% and 67.5% for other cancers (n = 111 and 228). For radiotherapy plans, agreement ranged from 80.0% to 84.4% after IS and 68.4% to 74.0% for suspected FOM. Concordance was greatest for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (86.0%, n = 308) alone or combined with radiotherapy in prostate cancer IS (80.8%, n = 517). In prostate FOM, the concordance across all treatment plans was lower if the patients had ADT claims within 180 d before NaF PET. Agreement with nontreatment plans was high for FOM (87.2% in other cancers and 78.6% if no prior ADT in prostate) and low after IS (40.7%–62.5%). Conclusion: Concordance of post–NaF PET plans and claims was substantial and higher overall for IS than for FOM.

  • 18F-fluoride PET
  • bone metastasis
  • prostate cancer
  • lung cancer
  • insurance claims linkage
  • outcomes and process assessment

Footnotes

  • Published online Nov. 30, 2017.

  • © 2018 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 59 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 59, Issue 3
March 1, 2018
  • 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 Treatment After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease 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 Treatment After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry
Bruce E. Hillner, Lucy Hanna, Rajesh Makineni, Fenghai Duan, Anthony F. Shields, Rathan M. Subramaniam, Ilana Gareen, Barry A. Siegel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2018, 59 (3) 421-426; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.205047

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Intended Versus Inferred Treatment After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry
Bruce E. Hillner, Lucy Hanna, Rajesh Makineni, Fenghai Duan, Anthony F. Shields, Rathan M. Subramaniam, Ilana Gareen, Barry A. Siegel
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2018, 59 (3) 421-426; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.205047
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • APPENDIX A: COMMON PROCEDURAL AND DRUG CODES USED IN ANALYSIS
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • The Injustice of Being Judged by the Errors of Others: The Tragic Tale of the Battle for PET Reimbursement
  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET: History, Technical Feasibility, Mechanism of Action, Normal Biodistribution, and Diagnostic Performance in Bone Metastasis Detection Compared with Other Imaging Modalities
  • The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): A Monumental Effort by a Few Leaders
  • The Injustice of Being Judged by the Errors of Others: The Tragic Tale of the Battle for PET Reimbursement
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology

  • Surveillance of Clinically Complete Responders Using Serial 18F-FDG PET/CT Scans in Patients with Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
  • Phase I Study of 99mTc-ADAPT6, a Scaffold Protein–Based Probe for Visualization of HER2 Expression in Breast Cancer
  • Treatment Monitoring of Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy Using 18F-FET PET in Patients with Melanoma and Lung Cancer Brain Metastases: Initial Experiences
Show more Oncology

Clinical

  • Lymphocyte Infiltration Determines the Hypoxia-Dependent Response to Definitive Chemoradiation in Head-and-Neck Cancer: Results from a Prospective Imaging Trial
  • Surveillance of Clinically Complete Responders Using Serial 18F-FDG PET/CT Scans in Patients with Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
  • Developing and Implementing an Imaging Optimization Study in Pediatric Nuclear Medicine: Experience and Recommendations from an IAEA-Coordinated Research Project
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • 18F-fluoride PET
  • Bone metastasis
  • prostate cancer
  • lung cancer
  • insurance claims linkage
  • outcomes and process assessment
SNMMI

© 2021 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire