| Growth in the Use of PET for Six Cancer Types After Coverage by Medicare: Additive or Replacement? | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 22221634 Owner: NLM Status: In-Data-Review |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
BACKGROUND: In July 2001, PET became a covered service for Medicare beneficiaries when used for the diagnosis, staging, and restaging of non-small-cell lung, esophageal, colorectal, and head and neck cancers as well as lymphoma and melanoma. Whether physicians use PET as a replacement for or in addition to CT, MRI, or bone scintigraphy (BS) is uncertain. METHODS: A 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged > 64 years from 2004 through 2008 was used. Annually for each cancer type, a cohort of patients was created defined as having at least one admission with a primary cancer diagnosis or two nonhospital claims with a cancer diagnosis ≥7 days apart per calendar year. Each year, imaging claims and claim-days were counted by modality and cancer type. The sequence of PET use was examined as before, after, or instead of other imaging. RESULTS: About 125,000 beneficiaries (2.5% of the cohort) met the cancer definition each year. In 2008, the combined annual imaging days per person-year were 2.3 for CT, 0.49 for MRI, 0.70 for PET, and 0.13 for BS. The annual rates of imaging from 2004 to 2008 increased by 0.5% for CT, 3.2% for MRI, and 18.0% for PET (range, 14.6%-19.9% by cancer type) and decreased by 12.7% for BS. The growth in PET use was not associated with meaningful changes in body CT. In 2007 and 2008, body CT preceded PET within 30 days in about half of patients, whereas PET preceded CT in only 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Several years after its introduction, PET continued to grow rapidly, with evidence that it is replacing BS. Growth of PET occurred without evidence of a decline in body CT. About half of PET use occurred shortly after body CT, suggesting an additive or final arbiter role. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Bruce E Hillner; Anna N Tosteson; Yunjie Song; Tor D Tosteson; Tracy Onega; David C Goodman; Barry A Siegel |
Related Documents
:
|
20122874 - Differences between intraoperative ultrasound-based dosimetry and postoperative compute... 10364754 - Is magnetic resonance imaging necessary in the staging of prostate cancer? 15967524 - The magnetic resonance detected intraprostatic lesion in prostate cancer: planning and ... 22095994 - Whole-body diffusion-weighted mr imaging in cancer: current status and research directi... 17362454 - Lacrimal sac volume measurement during eyelid closure and opening. 2781014 - Is gd-dtpa required for routine cranial mr imaging? |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR Volume: 9 ISSN: 1558-349X ISO Abbreviation: J Am Coll Radiol Publication Date: 2012 Jan |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2012-01-06 Completed Date: - Revised Date: - |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 101190326 Medline TA: J Am Coll Radiol Country: United States |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 33-41 Citation Subset: IM |
Copyright Information:
|
Copyright © 2012 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
Affiliation:
|
Department of Internal Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Trends in the utilization of outpatient advanced imaging after the deficit reduction act.
Next Document: Use of inpatient imaging services by persons without health insurance.