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
  • 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
    • 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 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

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Defining the Cohort

    NOPR cases (2/6/2011 to 9/30/2014)n
    Total number of cases32,663
    Patient or provider: consent withheld(4,648)
    Patient: no match to social security number(652)
    Patient: age < 65 at time of scan(1,520)
    Indication: cancer of unknown primary origin(266)
    Indication: diagnosis(1,078)
    Indication: suspected progression of osseous metastasis or treatment monitoring(5,825)
    Indication: subsequent scan performed for FOM(3,283)
    Additional evaluation: post–NaF PET plan to image or biopsy(1,844)
    Insurance: Medicare Advantage(2,184)
    Insurance: no claims paid(566)
    No claim found for NaF PET(899)
    Analysis cohort9,898
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Profile of NOPR Cohort

    LungProstateOther
    Patient profile, indication, and findingsISFOMISFOMISFOM
    Number2163622,7014,7494961,374
    Age, median 25%–75% quartile (y)73 (68–77)74 (69–80)73 (69–78)76 (71–82)75 (69–81)75 (70–80)
    Symptoms, signs, or test results (%)
     None70 (32.4)43 (11.9)1,574 (58.3)732 (15.4)231 (46.6)142 (10.3)
     Elevated or rising tumor marker or PSA only**724 (26.8)2,368 (49.9)*77 (5.6)
     Pain only80 (37.0)213 (58.8)142 (5.3)683 (14.4)165 (33.3)733 (53.3)
     Evidence from other imaging28 (13.0)40 (11.0)117 (4.3)293 (6.2)49 (9.9)145 (10.6)
     Multiple20 (9.3)43 (11.9)98 (3.6)550 (11.6)24 (4.8)197 (14.3)
    NaF PET findings (%)
     Benign or equivocal139 (64.4)216 (59.7)2,198 (81.4)2,886 (60.8)391 (78.8)934 (68.0)
     Probable metastases17 (7.9)34 (9.4)164 (6.1)439 (9.2)29 (5.8)108 (7.9)
     Definite bone metastases
     Unifocal12 (5.6)18 (5.0)36 (1.3)163 (3.4)13 (2.6)46 (3.3)
     Multifocal41 (19.0)80 (22.1)227 (8.4)951 (20.0)47 (9.5)206 (15.0)
     Diffuse*14 (3.9)76 (2.8)310 (6.5)16 (3.2)80 (5.8)
    Stage, post–NaF PET (%)
     Local/NED60 (27.8)168 (46.4)1,974 (73.1)1,794 (37.8)288 (58.1)792 (57.6)
     LN+/regional33 (15.3)10 (2.8)81 (3.0)739 (15.6)29 (5.8)49 (3.6)
     Single metastases24 (11.1)39 (10.8)134 (5.0)553 (11.6)40 (8.1)123 (9)
     Multiple metastases91 (42.1)145 (40.1)393 (14.6)1,663 (35.0)111 (22.4)410 (29.8)
     Unknown**119 (4.4)*28 (5.6)*
    Characteristics from claims
     Hospitalized within 180 d after NaF PET (%)117 (54.2)157 (43.3)542 (20.0)820 (17.2)187 (37.7)349 (25.4)
     Hospice within 60 d after NaF PET (%)17 (7.9)42 (11.6)*60 (1.2)13 (2.6)54 (3.9)
     Death within 180 d after NaF PET (%)68 (31.5)128 (35.3)47 (1.7)249 (5.2)64 (12.9)168 (12.2)
    Medicare Part D claims found (%)151 (69.9)223 (61.6)1,503 (55.6)2,668 (56.1)303 (61.0)848 (61.7)
    • ↵* Cell count < 11.

    • PSA = prostate-specific antigen; NED= no evidence of disease; LN+ = lymph nodal disease positive.

    • Data in parentheses are percentages.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Concordance of NOPR Post-PET Treatment Plans and Claims-Inferred Care

    NOPR treatment planCancer typeImaging indicationNo. of patientsAgreement (%)95 confidence interval of agreement (%)Other treatmentsNo treatment claims
    SurgeryLungIS2519 (76.0)54.9–90.6**
    OtherIS13098 (75.4)67.1–82.521 (16.1)11 (8.5)
    ProstateIS506298 (58.9)54.5–63.2183 (36.1)27 (5.3)
    Chemotherapy ± otherLungIS148120 (81.0)73.8–87.120 (13.5)*
    LungFOM136100 (73.5)65.3–80.712 (8.8)24 (17.6)
    Chemotherapy onlyOtherIS11177 (69.4)59.9–77.816 (14.4)18 (16.2)
    FOM228154 (67.5)61.0–73.619 (8.3)55 (24.1)
    RadiationLungIS‡8067 (83.7)73.8–91.1**
    FOM‡3626 (72.2)54.8–85.8**
    OtherIS†3024 (80.0)61.4–92.3**
    FOM†5440 (74.0)60.3–85.0**
    FOM‡5936 (61.0)47.4–73.4**
    ProstateIS†729616 (84.4)81.7–87.175 (10.3)38 (5.2)
    FOM†422289 (68.4)63.8–72.960 (14.2)73 (17.3)
    ADT onlyProstateIS308265 (86.0)81.7–89.727 (8.8)16 (5.2)
    FOM1,088895 (82.3)79.9–84.536 (3.3)157 (14.4)
    ADT + radiationProstate
     ADT componentIS517418 (80.8)77.2–84.117 (3.3)15 (2.9)
    FOM271205 (75.6)70.1–80.6*29 (10.7)
     Radiation componentIS517424 (82.0)78.4–85.217 (3.3)15 (2.9)
    FOM271183 (67.5)61.6–73.1*29 (10.7)
    • ↵* Cell count < 11.

    • ↵† Radiation component of plans of radiation plus chemotherapy.

    • ↵‡ Radiation therapy only.

    • Data in parentheses are percentages.

    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    Agreement in Post–NaF PET Plans for Scans Obtained for Suspected FOM of Prostate Cancer Stratified by Prior ADT Claims

    NOPR treatment planPrior ADTNo. of patientsAgreement (%)95 confidence interval of agreement (%)Other treatmentsNo treatment claims
    ADT onlyYes430389 (90.5)87.3–93.111 (2.6)30 (6.9)
    No658506 (76.9)73.5–80.126 (3.9)126 (19.3)
    Radiation onlyYes11786 (73.5)64.6–81.228 (23.9)*
    No305203 (66.6)61.0–71.834 (11.1)68 (22.3)
    ADT + radiation
    ADT componentYes8374 (89.2)80.4–94.9**
    No188131 (69.7)62.6–76.2**
    Radiation componentYes8363 (75.9)65.3–84.6**
    No187120 (63.8)56.5–70.7**
    Chemotherapy ± otherYes406208 (51.2)46.3–56.2176 (43.3)22 (5.4)
    No26481 (30.7)25.2–36.6128 (48.5)55 (20.8)
    • ↵* Cell count < 11.

    • View popup
    TABLE 5

    NOPR Plans for Nontreatment (Watch, Supportive Care, Hospice) and Absence of Treatment Claims Within 60 Days

    Cancer typeImaging indicationNo. of patientsAgreement (%)95 confidence interval of agreement (%)
    LungIS2415 (62.5)40.6–81.2
    OtherIS11351 (45.1)35.8–54.8
    ProstateIS391159 (40.7)35.8–45.7
    LungFOM180136 (75.6)68.1–81.6
    OtherFOM798696 (87.2)84.7–89.5
    ProstateFOM, prior ADT461203 (44.1)39.4–48.7
    FOM, no prior ADT1,3401,053 (78.6)76.3–80.7
    • Data in parentheses are percentages.

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
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
    • 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...

  • Use of 18F-NaF PET in the staging of skeletal metastases of newly diagnosed, high-risk prostate cancer patients: a nationwide cohort study
  • 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

  • The Evolving Role of FDG-PET/CT in Assessing Primary Cutaneous Lymphoma
  • Molecular imaging of Renal clear cell carcinoma subtypes as metabolic diseases
  • Role of PET/CT in the management of multiple myeloma
Show more Oncology

Clinical

  • Detection of Early Progression with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Receiving Bipolar Androgen Therapy
  • TauIQ: A Canonical Image Based Algorithm to Quantify Tau PET Scans
  • Dual PET Imaging in Bronchial Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: The NETPET Score as a Prognostic Biomarker
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

Keywords

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

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire