Health Policy and Management (보건행정학회지)

Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management (한국보건행정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Establishing research priorities of FDG PET in oncology indications using Delphi technique

델파이법을 활용한 종양분야 FDG PET의 경제성 평가 연구 우선순위 선정

  • Do Young Kyung (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee Jin Yong (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim Young-Ik (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kwon Young Hoon (Kangbuk Samsung Hospital) ;
  • Lee Sang-Il (Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim Chang-Yup (Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Health)
  • 도영경 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실) ;
  • 이진용 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실) ;
  • 김용익 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실) ;
  • 권영훈 (강북삼성병원) ;
  • 이상일 (울산대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 김창엽 (서울대학교 보건대학원)
  • Published : 2004.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The rapid increase in PET devices and its utilization in Korea necessitates relevant health insurance policies based on scientific evidence, including economic evaluation of PET in clinical conditions. However, there is very little amount of evidence regarding PET, and the first step would be to establish research priorities to give a momentum for research and assure efficient use of research capacities. To this end, we conducted a two-round Delphi study, which produced stable consensus on about top 10 oncology indications for research, which included lymphoma staging, colorectal cancer recurrence/restaging, lung cancer staging, and other conditions. The results were largely consistent with current U.S. Medicare reimbursement indications and are expected to lead to relevant researches and evidence-based health policies on PET reimbursement and regulation.

Keywords

References

  1. 강영호. 우리나라 암 연구수준의 평가와 암 연구인력 훈련요구의 예측: 델파이법의 적용. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문. 1998
  2. 안형식, 김선민, 김선미, 김창엽, 신영수, 이순형. 전문의 대상 설문조사를 이용한 보건의료 기술평가 대상 시술의 우선 순위 선정. 보건행정학회지. 1997;7(2):46-64
  3. 이명철. 제7장 양전자단층촬영(PET). 핵의학 제2판(고창순 편). 고려의학, 1997
  4. 이성웅. Delphi 기술예측기법의 유용성에 관한 연구. 전북대학교 대학원 박사학위논문. 1987
  5. Bayley EW, Richmond T, Noroian EL, Allen LR. A Delphi study on research priorities for trauma nursing. Am J Crit Care 1994;3(3):208-16
  6. Bond S, Bond J. A Delphi survey of clinical nursing research priorities. J Advanced Nursing 1982;7:565-75 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1982.tb00277.x
  7. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. CARTA Newsletter. Issues 23. 2001.7
  8. Czernin J, Phelps ME. Positron emission tomography scanning: current and future applications. Annu Rev Med. 2002;53:89-112 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.53.082901.104028
  9. Dajani JS, Sincoff MZ, Talley WK. Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 1979;13:83-90
  10. Dalkey NC. Delphi (Report P-3704). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 1967
  11. Dietlein M, Weber K, Gandjour A, Moka D, Theissen P, Lauterbach KW, Schicha H. Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: priority for a PET-based strategy after nodal-negative CT results. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2000;27(11):1598-609 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590000376
  12. Flynn K, Adams E. Positron Emission Tomography: descriptive analysis of experience with PET in VA and systematic reviews (FDG-PET as a diagnostic test for cancer and Alzheimer's disease). MDRC Technology Assessment Program. 1996
  13. Gambhir SS et al. A Tabulated Summary of the FDG PET Literature. The Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2001;42:1-93. Supplement
  14. Harrington JM. Research priorities in occupational medicine: a survey of United Kingdom medical opinion by the Delphi technique. Occup Environ Med 1994;51:289-94 https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.51.5.289
  15. Iavicoli S, Marinaccio A, Vonesch N, Ursini CL, Grandi C, Palmi S. Research priorities in occupational health in Italy. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58(5):325-9 https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.58.5.325
  16. Keppler JS. Federal regulations and reimbursement for PET. J Nucl Med Technol. 2001;29(4):173-9
  17. Linstone HA, Turoff M. 1. Introduction. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications (Eds: Linstone HA, Turoff M). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1975
  18. Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, van Barneveld T, van Vugt C, Bouter LM. Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: principles and practice. Health Policy. 2002;62(3):221-42
  19. Robert G, Milne R. A Delphi study to establish national cost-effectiveness research priorities for positron emission tomography. European Journal of Radiology 1999;30:54-60 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(98)00139-9
  20. Robert G, Milne R. Positron emission tomography: establishing priorities for health technology assessment. Health Technology Assessment 1999; Vol.3: No.16
  21. Scott WJ, Shepherd J, Gambhir SS. Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for staging non-small cell lung cancer: a decision analysis. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 1998;66(6):1876-83; discussion 1883-5
  22. Szczepura A, Kanjaanpaa. Chapter One. An Introduction to Health Technology. Assessment of health care technologies(Eds: Szczepura A, Kanjaanpaa). John Wiley & Sons. 1996
  23. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare Coverage Database. National Coverage Determinations for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Scans. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewncd.asp?ncd_id=50-36&ncd_version=3&show=all Accessed July 16, 2004
  24. The NHS National Coordinating Center for HTA (NCCHTA). The Annual Report of the NHS National Coordinating Center for HTA. 1999
  25. Valk PE, Pounds TR, Tesar RD, Hopkins DM, Haseman MK. Cost-effectiveness of PET imaging in clinical oncology. Nucl Med BioI. 1996;23(6):737-43 https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-8051(96)00080-7