PET-CT in the sub-arctic region of Norway 2010–2013. At the edge of what is possible?

BMC Medical Imaging

Rune Sundset²  Gry Andersen¹  Geir Tollåli²  Carsten Nieder³  Erik Traasdahl¹  Ursula Søndergaard¹  Jan Norum¹ 

[1] Department of Radiology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, N-9038, Norway;Northern Norway Regional Health Authority trust, Bodø, N-8038, Norway;Nordland hospital, Bodø, N-8017, Norway

关键词: Access;    Northern Norway;    Arctic;    FDG;    PET-CT;   

Others  :  1222820
DOI  :  10.1186/s12880-015-0073-0

 received in 2014-08-08, accepted in 2015-07-17,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

It is challenging to obtain a similar access to positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET-CT) within the whole region served. In the subarctic and arctic region of Norway, significant distances, weather conditions and seasonable darkness have been challenging when the health care provider has aimed for a high quality PET-CT service with similar availability to all inhabitants.

Methods

The PET-CT service at the University Hospital of North Norway (UNN) was established in May 2010. The glucose analogue tracer fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) was delivered from Helsinki, Finland. An ambulatory PET-CT scanner was initially employed and a permanent local one was introduced in October 2011. In March 2014, we analysed retrospectively all data on the PET-CT exams performed at the Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology during a 32 months time period 2010–13. The following patient data were recorded: gender, age, diagnosis, residence and distance of travelling. There were in total 796 exams in 706 patients.

Results

Four hundred sixty-one PET-CT exams per million inhabitants were, on average, performed per year. Lung cancer (32.7 %), malignant melanoma (11.3 %), colorectal cancer (10.9 %) and lymphoma (9.7 %) constituted two-thirds of all exams. Three-fourths were males and the median age was 63.5 years (range 15.2–91.4 years). The access to PET-CT exam varied within the region. The southern county (Nordland) experienced a significantly less access (p < 0.0001) to the regional service. Except for malignant melanoma, this finding was observed in all major cancer subgroups. In colorectal cancer and lymphoma a lower consumption of PET-CT was also observed in the northeastern county (Finnmark). Patients’ mean distance of travelling by car (one way) was 373 km (median 313 km, range 5–936 km).

Conclusion

PET-CT was not similarly available within the region. Especially, inhabitants in the southern county experienced less access to the regional service. National and regional standards of care, new scanners and improved collaboration between hospital trusts may alter this situation.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Norum et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cuaron J, Dunphy M, Rimner A. Role of FDG-PET scans in staging, response assessment, and follow-up care for non-small cell lung cancer. Front Oncol. 2013; 2:208.
• [2]Norderhaug IN, Ringard Å, Mørtland B. Implementation of PET in Norway – neither too slow nor too late? J Norw Med Assoc. 2011; 131:225-6.
• [3]Sundar T. Finally is PET financed. J Norw Med Assoc. 2003; 123:3000.
• [4]Graff BA, Jeppesen E, Movik E, Norderhaug IN, Fjeld JG, Bach-Gansmo T. Estimating the need for PET/CT in 2020. Norwegian Knowledge Centre, Oslo; 2010.
• [5]Høilund-Carlsen PF, Gerke O, Vilstrup MH, Lerberg Nielsen A, Thomassen A, Hess S et al.. PET/CT without capacity limitations: a Danish experience from a European perspective. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21:1277-85.
• [6]Molecular imaging, PET/CT and PET/MR Europe. 2014. www. medicaloptions.co.uk. Accessed 15 th May 2015
• [7]Bedford M, Maisey MN. Requirements for clinical PET: comparisons within Europe. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004; 31:208-21.
• [8]De WW, Stroobants S, Coolen J, Verschakelen JA. Integrated PET/CT in the staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer: technical aspects and clinical integration. Eur Respir J. 2009; 33:201-12.
• [9]Gilman MD, Aquino SL. State-of-the-Art FDG-PET imaging of lung cancer. Semin Roentgenol. 2005; 40:143-53.
• [10]National treatment program with guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow up of lung cancer. The Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo; 2014.
• [11]Xanthopoulos EP, Corradetti MN, Mitra N, Fernandes AT, Kim M, Grover S et al.. Impact of PET staging in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2013; 8:899-905.
• [12]Langer NH, Christensen TN, Langer SW, Kjaer A, Fischer BM. PET/CT in therapy evaluation of patients with lung cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2014; 14:595-620.
• [13]Danielsen M, Højgaard L, Kjær A, Fischer BM. Positron emission tomography in the follow-up of cutaneous malignant melanoma patients: a systematic review. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 4:17-28.
• [14]Jimenez-Requena F, Delgado-Bolton RC, Fernandez-Perez C, Gambhir SS, Schwimmer J, Perez-Vazquez JM et al.. Meta-analysis of the performance of (18)F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 37:284-300.
• [15]Xing Y, Bronstein Y, Ross MI, Askew RL, Lee JE, Gershenwald JE et al.. Contemporary diagnostic imaging modalities for the staging and surveillance of melanoma patients: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103:129-42.
• [16]National treatment program with guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow up of malignant melanoma. The Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo; 2013.
• [17]Cancer in Norway 2013. Cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Special issue. Cancer in Norwegian counties 1954–2013. Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo; 2015.
• [18]National treatment program with guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow up of colorectal cancer. The Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo; 2013.
• [19]National treatment program with guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow up of malignant lymphomas. The Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo; 2012.
• [20]Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ et al.. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25:579-86.
• [21]Gallicchio R, Mansueto G, Simeon V, Nardelli A, Guariglia R, Capacchione D et al.. F-18 FDG PET/CT quantization parameters as predictors of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Haematol. 2014; 92:382-9.
• [22]Basu S, Kumar R, Ranade R. Assessment of treatment response using PET. PET Clin. 2015; 10:9-26.
• [23]Mylam KJ, El-Galaly TC, Hutchings M, Brown P, Himmelstrup B, Gerke O et al.. Prognostic impact of clinician-based interpretation of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography reports obtained in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014; 55:1563-9.
• [24]Dann EJ, Berkahn L, Mashiach T, Frumer M, Agur A, McDiarmid B et al.. Hodgkin lymphoma patients in first remission: routine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography imaging is not superior to clinical follow-up for patients with no residual mass. Br J Haematol. 2014; 164:694-700.
• [25]Breuer N, Behrendt FF, Heinzel A, Mottaghy FM, Palmowski M, Verburg FA. Prognostic relevance of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in carcinoma of unknown primary. Clin Nucl Med. 2014; 39:131-5.