Authors' objectives:

This report aims to identify and assess the current evidence on cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography (PET) as it is available in the medical literature.

Authors' results and conclusions: The methodological quality of the cardiological studies to a great extent was judged as high, whereas in the field of oncology, especially the economic evaluation studies on diagnosis/staging of non-small-cell lung carcinoma showed good quality. The quality of the neurological study was also assessed as good. As PET diagnostics can potentially be applied in a number of areas, it is not possible to derive a global cost-effectiveness for PET. Instead, only the cost-effectiveness of a specific use of the diagnostic technique in specified disease areas can be derived. Summarising the currently published literature, the use of PET is only assessed as cost-effective in the diagnosis of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. In order to use these results in the support of decision-making in the German context it is necessary to adequately adapt the cost as well as the effect side. For diagnosis in other areas of oncology, the currently available evidence is not sufficient to judge the cost-effectiveness of the clinical use of PET. In the area of cardiology results so far are either not assertive (in case of confirming the viability of the myocard) or not consistent (in the case of perfusion measurement). As for the use of PET in the field of neurology only one single study is available at this moment, it is not possible to give a (general) evidence-based statement

Authors' recommendations: Just for a small number of areas, qualitative acceptable information on the cost-effectiveness of PET diagnostics is available and can be based on several studies. This is true for the diagnostic of lung cancer and for the perfusion measurement of the heart. In order to overcome the existing gaps in health economic evidence, further economic evaluation studies are needed, at best on the basis of qualitatively high-ranking clinical studies. Significant need exists especially in the area of neurology/psychiatry in which only a first evaluation step has been taken so far. When assessing the economic relevance of PET for a health system in total or for an individual provider, it is important to determine the distribution of PET in clinical practice over its various areas of use (oncology, cardiology and neurology/psychiatry), as cost-effectiveness may differ among these.

Authors' methods: Systematic review, economic evaluation

Project Status: Completed

URL for project: http://www.dimdi.de/

Year Published: 2001

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: Germany

Organisation Name: German Agency for HTA at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information

Contact Address: German Agency for Health Technology Assessment at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information, Waisenhausgasse 36-38a, D-50676 Cologne Germany

Contact Name: dahta@dimdi.de

Contact Email: dahta@dimdi.de

Copyright: German Agency for Health Technology Assessment at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information