Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:49:17.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Joint project of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment—Part 2: Managing the diffusion of positron emission tomography with health technology assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

Elizabeth J. Adams ,
Cari Almazán ,
Berit Mørland ,
Ian Bradbury ,
Richard King  and
Paul Rheinberger
Elizabeth J. Adams
Affiliation:
Veterans Administration Technology Assessment Program
Cari Almazán
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research
Berit Mørland
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
Ian Bradbury
Affiliation:
University of Ulster
Richard King
Affiliation:
Monash Medical Centre
Paul Rheinberger
Affiliation:
National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Since 1997, members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) have collaborated on a Joint Project to track the diffusion, evaluation, and clinical policy of positron emission tomography (PET). Part 2 of this updated Joint Project report summarizes HTA-based strategies for directing the clinical use of PET and a discussion on the value of HTA in managing the diffusion of high cost diagnostic technologies, which were presented at an INAHTA-sponsored workshop at the Health Technology Assessment International Annual Meeting in 2004 on strategies for managing high cost diagnostic technologies.

Methods: A summary of the workshop proceedings is presented.

Conclusions: Sharing assessment work, universal agreement in assessment conclusions, stakeholder input, and modeling techniques help manage the uncertainty in the evidence base while targeting clinical use of PET toward the most promising indications. Emphasis on HTA findings, linkage between financing of clinical PET and outcome evaluation, and targeted dissemination of scientific findings empower providers to reduce unnecessary utilization and contain costs within a quality improvement framework. Above all, a trustworthy source of HTA information and a process that is conducive to using scientific evidence as the basis for decision making are essential for managing the diffusion of complex and costly diagnostic technologies in patient care.

Keywords

Positron emission tomographyTomography emission computedTechnology assessmentHealth policyDiffusion of innovation
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 149 - 154
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams E, Flynn K. 1998. Positron emission tomography: Descriptive analysis of experience with PET in VA. Systematic reviews: FDG-PET as a diagnostic test in cancer and Alzheimer's disease. Veterans Health Administration: Available at: www.va.gov/vatap.
Adams EJ, Asua J, Olasagasti JG, et al. 1999. On Behalf of INAHTA. Positron emission tomography: Experience with PET and synthesis of the evidence. Stockholm: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment; Available at: www.inahta.org.
Almazan C. 2004 Update of the Indications of the PET in Oncology With Public Coverage in Catalonia. Informatiu AATRM. 32: 3– 4. Available at: http://www.gencat.net/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/pdf/but32en.pdf.Google Scholar
Bradbury I Bonell E Boynton J, et al. 2002. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. Health technology assessment report 2. Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland; Available at: http://docs.scottishmedicines.org/docs/pdf/ASSESSMENT%20REPORT%202.pdf.
Bundesauschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen. Health technology assessment-39. Positronen-emissions-tomographie (PET) [in German]. 2002. Available at: http://www.kbv.de/hta.
Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD. Comment on health technology assessment (HTA) and the OECD project on new and emerging health related technologies (NEHRT). Presented at the OECD Workshop on the NEHRT Project October 27-28, 2003. The Hague, The Netherlands.
Flynn K, Adams E, Anderson D. 1996. Positron emission tomography: Descriptive analysis of experience with PET in VA. Systematic reviews: FDG-PET as a diagnostic test for cancer and Alzheimer's disease. Veterans Health Administration: Available at: www.va.gov/vatap.
2002. Health Technology Board for Scotland. Health technology assessment advice 2. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. No. 0048. Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland. Available at: http://docs.scottishmedicines.org/docs/pdf/ADVICE2.pdf.
Højgaard L. 2003 Are health technology assessments a reliable tool in the analysis of the clinical value of PET in oncology? Who audits the auditors? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 30: 637– 641.Google Scholar
Højgaard L. 2004 (Reply). Letter to the editor. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 31: 297– 298.Google Scholar
INAHTA (Reply). 2004 Letter to the editor. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 31: 295– 297.
Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Positron emission tomography (PET) for a number of services-March 2000. MSAC Reference 02. Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Aged Care; March 2000. Available at: http://www.msac.gov.au/reports.htm.
Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Positron emission tomography (PET) for a number of services-August 2001. MSAC Reference 10 part 2 (ii). Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Aged Care; August 2001. Available at: http://www.msac.gov.au/reports.htm.
Morland B. 2003. Positron emission tomography (PET)—Diagnostic and clinical use [in Norwegian]. (SMM-Report 6/2003). Norwegian Center for Health Technology Assessment (SMM)
Norwegian Health Department Health Budget 2004. Helsebudsjettet 2004: Prioriterer dem som trenger det mest. Pressemelding [in Norwegian]. Nr. 75. October 8, 2003. Available at: http://odin.dep.no/hod/norsk/aktuelt/pressesenter/pressem/042071-070172/dok-bn.html.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Health Project. 2005. Health technologies and decision making. Paris: OECD Publishing; Available at: www.oecd.org/health.
Scottish Executive Health Department. Implementation of HTBS' health technology assessment of positron-emission tomography in Scotland. Report and recommendations. October 2003. Available at: http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/sehd/mels/hdl2003_63.pdf.
Smiseth OA, Myhre ES, Aas M, Gribbestad IS, Eikvar LK, Kjonniksen I. Positron emission tomography (PET) [in Norwegian]. (SMM-Report 8/2000) The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC) 2000.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare coverage database. National coverage determination for PET (FDG) (Section 220.6.1-15). Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/index_list.asp?list_type=ncd#PP.
Valk PE. 2004 Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? Controversies: Against. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 31: 132– 135.Google Scholar
Van Tintern H, Hoekstra OS, Boers M. 2004 Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? Controversies: Pro. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 31: 129– 132.Google Scholar
Van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Boers M. 2003 (Reply). The need for health technology assessments of PET. Letter to the Editor. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 30: 1438– 1439.Google Scholar