MAR 07, 2016 7:59 AM PST

Costly scans don't save lives after lung cancer

Once you’ve made it through lung cancer treatment, you want to make sure you catch it early if it comes back again. But a new study suggests hospitals may be overusing an expensive type of scan, with no impact on survival rates.
 
"PET scanning is a great technology and very effective, but using it in this way doesn't seem to make any difference for these cancers that have a relatively poor prognosis," says Mark Healey.

Researchers looked at how often survivors of lung and esophageal cancer went through a kind of imaging called PET scanning as the primary way of monitoring their condition, instead of as a backstop to other kinds of scans.

PET scans are expensive, but potentially powerful. They let doctors see increased activity by cells inside the body—including fast-growing cancer cells—and do so early. Many cancer patients receive PET scans as part of their diagnosis to see how advanced their cancer is and to see how it’s responding to treatment.

But the scans aren’t recommended as the first option for longterm monitoring to watch for recurrence.

In fact, it’s one of the few imaging tools for which the Medicare system imposes limits—currently, three follow-up PET scans per person, even when doctors only order them after spotting something on a CT scan or other medical image.

Despite this, researchers found widespread use when they looked at Medicare data for more than 100,000 lung and esophageal cancer patients who had cancer in the mid-2000s and follow-up care through 2011.
More than 22 percent of the lung cancer patients and 31 percent of the esophageal cancer patients had at least one PET scan to look for a cancer recurrence during their follow-up period, without first having a CT scan or other imaging.

Hospitals varied widely in how often they used this approach, from nearly never at some to a majority of the time in others. Some hospitals used it eight times more often than others.

And no matter how often they used it, the result was the same: Patients who went to a high PET-use hospital for their lung cancer follow-up were just as likely to survive two years as those who went to a low PET-use hospital.

“PET scanning is a great technology and very effective, but using it in this way doesn’t seem to make any difference for these cancers that have a relatively poor prognosis,” says Mark Healy, a surgical resident and research fellow in the surgery department at the University of Michigan. “The appropriate use of PET scanning in follow-up care for lung and esophageal cancer is after findings on lower-cost imaging options.”

National guidelines call for this type of use, but the new findings suggest they are not being followed.

“Our work shows that almost no one is getting to the three-scan limit set by Medicare. But, with many thousands of patients getting one or two scans across the whole country, this is still a very large number, with very high costs. If the intention of the policy is to curb overuse, this doesn’t seem to be a very effective method, and the agency should reevaluate how it structures its limits.”

Better coordination between radiologists and the physicians who care for cancer patients after their treatment might also improve appropriateness, Healy says.

The researchers used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and Medicare-linked data to perform the study that is published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The data come from hundreds of hospitals nationwide, but the individual hospitals can’t be identified under the terms of the data use. The researchers hope the findings will help providers of all kinds understand the best use of PET scanning in cancer care, and patients as well.

“Following evidence-based guidelines for clinical follow-up is the way to go. Don’t order PET in asymptomatic patients,” says Healy. “And for patients, if you are not having symptoms and you’re doing well, there’s no reason to seek out this scan.”

The National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the American Cancer Society funded the work.

Source: University of Michigan

This article was originally published on futurity.org.
About the Author
  • Futurity features the latest discoveries by scientists at top research universities in the US, UK, Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The nonprofit site, which launched in 2009, is supported solely by its university partners (listed below) in an effort to share research news directly with the public.
You May Also Like
NOV 18, 2019
Cancer
NOV 18, 2019
UV light targets hyperhotspots for skin cancer
New research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that certain “hyperhotspots” in the human genome can be pinp...
DEC 01, 2019
Cancer
DEC 01, 2019
At-home urine test detects prostate cancer
Peeing on a stick may not just be for pregnancy-detection anymore – an at-home urine test could also detect prostate cancer in the near future. New r...
DEC 02, 2019
Cancer
DEC 02, 2019
Self-renewing blood stem cells give hope for blood disease treatments
New research details how activating a certain protein may be the key to getting hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) to self-renew. The research comes from scie...
DEC 06, 2019
Health & Medicine
DEC 06, 2019
Study finds association between hair products and breast cancer risk
For many women, hair color and style are significant components of their identity. However, troubling information from a new study about the use of hair dy...
JAN 02, 2020
Genetics & Genomics
JAN 02, 2020
Mysterious Extrachromosomal DNA is Linked to Childhood Cancer
Scientists are learning more about an unusual kind of DNA that's separate from a cell's genomic DNA....
JAN 08, 2020
Health & Medicine
JAN 08, 2020
Major Study Does Not Find Strong Link Between Talcum Powder and Cancer
Competing opinions regarding the safety of talcum powder have developed throughout the past several decades. Talc is commonly used as baby powder and is al...
Loading Comments...