Cost-effectiveness of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT versus CE-CT for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a register-based comparative study

Abstract We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT compared to CE-CT for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. The study included 300 biopsy-verified MBC patients treated at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). CE-CT was used in 144 patients, 83 patients underwent 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, and 73 patients received a combination of both. Hospital resource-based costs (2007–2019) were adjusted to the 2019 level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by comparing average costs per patient and gained survival with CE-CT. During a median follow-up of 33.0 months, patients in the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group had more short admissions (median 6 vs. 2) and fewer overnight admissions (5 vs. 12) compared to the CE-CT group. The mean total cost per patient was €91,547 for CE-CT, €83,965 for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, and €165,784 for the combined group. The ICER for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT compared to CE-CT was €-527/month, indicating gaining an extra month of survival at a lower cost (€527). 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT was more cost-effective in patients with favorable prognostic factors (oligometastatic or estrogen receptor-positive disease), while CE-CT was more cost-effective in poor prognosis patients (liver/lung metastases or performance status ≥ 2 at baseline). In conclusion, our study suggests that 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT is a cost-effective modality for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer

Clinical Impact of FDG-PET/CT Compared with CE-CT in Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer

We compared response categories and impacts on treatment decisions for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients that are response-monitored with contrast-enhanced computed-tomography (CE-CT) or fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). A comparative diagnostic study was performed on MBC patients undergoing response monitoring by CE-CT (n = 34) or FDG-PET/CT (n = 31) at the Odense University Hospital (Denmark). The responses were assessed visually and allocated into categories of complete response (CR/CMR), partial response (PR/PMR), stable disease (SD/SMD), and progressive disease (PD/PMD). Response categories, clinical impact, and positive predictive values (PPV) were compared for follow-up scans. A total of 286 CE-CT and 189 FDG-PET/CT response monitoring scans were performed. Response categories were distributed into CR (3.8%), PR (8.4%), SD (70.6%), PD (15%), and others (2.1%) by CE-CT and into CMR (22.2%), PMR (23.8%), SMD (31.2%), PMD (18.5%), and others (4.4%) by FDG-PET/CT, revealing a significant difference between the groups (P < 0.001). PD and PMD caused changes of treatment in 79.1% and 60%, respectively (P = 0.083). PPV for CE-CT and FDG-PET/CT was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.72–0.97) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53–0.87), respectively (P = 0.17). FDG-PET/CT indicated regression of disease more frequently than CE-CT, while CE-CT indicated stable disease more often. FDG-PET/CT seems to be more sensitive than CE-CT for monitoring response in metastatic breast cancer