Investing in new technology: the PET experience

I. Bradbury, K. Facey, G. Laking, Peter Frederick Sharp

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As funding available to health services is limited, demonstrating the cost effectiveness of new technologies is an important step in their introduction. This is especially challenging for diagnostic technologies, for which the usual paradigm of reliance on well-designed, randomised controlled trials may not be appropriate. A recently completed Health Technology Assessment of fluorine-18 deoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography ( PET) imaging in cancer management, focused on addressing whether the introduction of PET imaging would be beneficial to patients in the NHS in Scotland, exemplifies some of the challenges. Although a substantial body of published literature exists for this technology, most of the studies report diagnostic accuracy rather than improved patient outcomes. Direct evidence that such improvement occurs, and is sufficient to meet the NHS' criteria for cost effectiveness, from well-designed trials would constitute the most immediately persuasive case for the introduction of PET imaging. In the absence of such evidence, collaboration is required between a variety of disciplines to synthesise evidence from a variety of sources to create informative decision models that estimate long-term patient outcomes. The use of such decision models enabled the Health Technology Board for Scotland ( now a part of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland) to determine that FDG-PET imaging is likely to be cost effective in selected applications and identified long-term patient benefits that it would not be possible to study in a randomised controlled trial.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)224-227
Number of pages3
JournalBritish Journal of Cancer
Volume89
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2003

Keywords

  • POSITRON-EMISSION-TOMOGRAPHY
  • CELL LUNG-CANCER
  • COST-EFFECTIVENESS
  • FDG-PET
  • NATIONAL-INSTITUTE
  • MANAGEMENT
  • PRIORITY
  • TRIAL
  • NICE

Cite this

Bradbury, I., Facey, K., Laking, G., & Sharp, P. F. (2003). Investing in new technology: the PET experience. British Journal of Cancer, 89(2), 224-227. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601109

Investing in new technology: the PET experience. / Bradbury, I.; Facey, K.; Laking, G.; Sharp, Peter Frederick.

In: British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 89, No. 2, 07.2003, p. 224-227.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bradbury, I, Facey, K, Laking, G & Sharp, PF 2003, 'Investing in new technology: the PET experience', British Journal of Cancer, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 224-227. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601109
Bradbury, I. ; Facey, K. ; Laking, G. ; Sharp, Peter Frederick. / Investing in new technology: the PET experience. In: British Journal of Cancer. 2003 ; Vol. 89, No. 2. pp. 224-227.
@article{2e9c3297c9ec4d9ca009844598e9353d,
title = "Investing in new technology: the PET experience",
abstract = "As funding available to health services is limited, demonstrating the cost effectiveness of new technologies is an important step in their introduction. This is especially challenging for diagnostic technologies, for which the usual paradigm of reliance on well-designed, randomised controlled trials may not be appropriate. A recently completed Health Technology Assessment of fluorine-18 deoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography ( PET) imaging in cancer management, focused on addressing whether the introduction of PET imaging would be beneficial to patients in the NHS in Scotland, exemplifies some of the challenges. Although a substantial body of published literature exists for this technology, most of the studies report diagnostic accuracy rather than improved patient outcomes. Direct evidence that such improvement occurs, and is sufficient to meet the NHS' criteria for cost effectiveness, from well-designed trials would constitute the most immediately persuasive case for the introduction of PET imaging. In the absence of such evidence, collaboration is required between a variety of disciplines to synthesise evidence from a variety of sources to create informative decision models that estimate long-term patient outcomes. The use of such decision models enabled the Health Technology Board for Scotland ( now a part of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland) to determine that FDG-PET imaging is likely to be cost effective in selected applications and identified long-term patient benefits that it would not be possible to study in a randomised controlled trial.",
keywords = "POSITRON-EMISSION-TOMOGRAPHY, CELL LUNG-CANCER, COST-EFFECTIVENESS, FDG-PET, NATIONAL-INSTITUTE, MANAGEMENT, PRIORITY, TRIAL, NICE",
author = "I. Bradbury and K. Facey and G. Laking and Sharp, {Peter Frederick}",
year = "2003",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1038/sj.bjc.6601109",
language = "English",
volume = "89",
pages = "224--227",
journal = "British Journal of Cancer",
issn = "0007-0920",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Investing in new technology: the PET experience

AU - Bradbury, I.

AU - Facey, K.

AU - Laking, G.

AU - Sharp, Peter Frederick

PY - 2003/7

Y1 - 2003/7

N2 - As funding available to health services is limited, demonstrating the cost effectiveness of new technologies is an important step in their introduction. This is especially challenging for diagnostic technologies, for which the usual paradigm of reliance on well-designed, randomised controlled trials may not be appropriate. A recently completed Health Technology Assessment of fluorine-18 deoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography ( PET) imaging in cancer management, focused on addressing whether the introduction of PET imaging would be beneficial to patients in the NHS in Scotland, exemplifies some of the challenges. Although a substantial body of published literature exists for this technology, most of the studies report diagnostic accuracy rather than improved patient outcomes. Direct evidence that such improvement occurs, and is sufficient to meet the NHS' criteria for cost effectiveness, from well-designed trials would constitute the most immediately persuasive case for the introduction of PET imaging. In the absence of such evidence, collaboration is required between a variety of disciplines to synthesise evidence from a variety of sources to create informative decision models that estimate long-term patient outcomes. The use of such decision models enabled the Health Technology Board for Scotland ( now a part of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland) to determine that FDG-PET imaging is likely to be cost effective in selected applications and identified long-term patient benefits that it would not be possible to study in a randomised controlled trial.

AB - As funding available to health services is limited, demonstrating the cost effectiveness of new technologies is an important step in their introduction. This is especially challenging for diagnostic technologies, for which the usual paradigm of reliance on well-designed, randomised controlled trials may not be appropriate. A recently completed Health Technology Assessment of fluorine-18 deoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography ( PET) imaging in cancer management, focused on addressing whether the introduction of PET imaging would be beneficial to patients in the NHS in Scotland, exemplifies some of the challenges. Although a substantial body of published literature exists for this technology, most of the studies report diagnostic accuracy rather than improved patient outcomes. Direct evidence that such improvement occurs, and is sufficient to meet the NHS' criteria for cost effectiveness, from well-designed trials would constitute the most immediately persuasive case for the introduction of PET imaging. In the absence of such evidence, collaboration is required between a variety of disciplines to synthesise evidence from a variety of sources to create informative decision models that estimate long-term patient outcomes. The use of such decision models enabled the Health Technology Board for Scotland ( now a part of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland) to determine that FDG-PET imaging is likely to be cost effective in selected applications and identified long-term patient benefits that it would not be possible to study in a randomised controlled trial.

KW - POSITRON-EMISSION-TOMOGRAPHY

KW - CELL LUNG-CANCER

KW - COST-EFFECTIVENESS

KW - FDG-PET

KW - NATIONAL-INSTITUTE

KW - MANAGEMENT

KW - PRIORITY

KW - TRIAL

KW - NICE

U2 - 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601109

DO - 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601109

M3 - Article

VL - 89

SP - 224

EP - 227

JO - British Journal of Cancer

JF - British Journal of Cancer

SN - 0007-0920

IS - 2

ER -