The rationale was to develop recommendations on the use of 18 F-FDG PET in breast, colorectal, esophageal, head and neck, lung, pancreatic, and thyroid cancer; lymphoma, melanoma, and sarcoma; and unknown primary tumor. Outcomes of interest included the use of 18 F-FDG PET for diagnosing, staging, and detecting the recurrence or progression of cancer. Methods: A search was performed to identify all published randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in the literature. An additional search was performed to identify relevant unpublished systematic reviews. These publications comprised both retrospective and prospective studies of varied methodologic quality. The anticipated consequences of false-positive and false-negative tests when evaluating clinical usefulness, and the impact of 18 F-FDG PET on the management of cancer patients, were also reviewed. Results and Conclusion: 18 F-FDG PET should be used as an imaging tool additional to conventional radiologic methods such as CT or MRI; any positive finding that could lead to a clinically significant change in patient management should be confirmed by subsequent histopathologic examination because of the risk of false-positive results. 18 F-FDG PET should be used in the appropriate clinical setting for the diagnosis of head and neck, lung, or pancreatic cancer and for unknown primary tumor. PET is also indicated for staging of breast, colon, esophageal, head and neck, and lung cancer and of lymphoma and melanoma. In addition, 18 F-FDG PET should be used to detect recurrence of breast, colorectal, head and neck, or thyroid cancer and of lymphoma. PET is an imaging technique that provides unique information about the molecular and metabolic changes associated with disease. The technology has existed for more than 30 years but has been used clinically for only the last 10-15 years. In this period, dramatic improvements in technology, the routine availability of medical cyclotrons (to produce the necessary short-lived positron emitters), and favorable reimbursement decisions in the late 1990s have led to a tremendous increase in the use of this technology. The major area of clinical application is currently in oncology, with some application in cardiology and neurology.PET requires the use of molecules (radiopharmaceuticals) that are labeled with radioactive nuclides. The amounts of radiolabeled material administered are extremely small (10 26 -10 29 g) and have essentially no pharmacologic effect. In this regard, PET has the unique ability to assess molecular alterations associated with disease without perturbing or altering the fundamental underlying molecular and biochemical processes. Although the number of molecular probes that can be radiolabeled with positron emitters is extremely large, and clinical investigational uses number in the thousands, clinical practice has been limited principally to the use of a glucose analog labeled with the positron emitter 18 F-FDG. 18 F-FDG was first synthesized in 1978 (1) and has become the most commonly used radioph...

Survival after therapy with an LHRH agonist was equivalent to that after orchiectomy. No evidence shows a difference in effectiveness among the LHRH agonists. Survival rates may be somewhat lower if a nonsteroidal antiandrogen is used as monotherapy.

The use of chemotherapy sensitivity and resistance assays to select chemotherapeutic agents for individual patients is not recommended outside of the clinical trial setting. Oncologists should make chemotherapy treatment recommendations on the basis of published reports of clinical trials and a patient's health status and treatment preferences. Because the in vitro analytic strategy has potential importance, participation in clinical trials evaluating these technologies remains a priority.

The use of CSRAs to select chemotherapeutic agents for individual patients is not recommended outside of the clinical trial setting. Oncologists should make chemotherapy treatment recommendations based on published reports of clinical trials and a patient's health status and treatment preferences. Because the in vitro analytic strategy has potential importance, participation in clinical trials evaluating these technologies remains a priority.

Diagnostic tests are critical components of effective health care. They help determine treatments that are most beneficial for a given patient. Their assessment is a complex process that includes such challenges as a dearth of studies that evaluate clinical outcomes and lack of data on use of the test in realistic clinical settings. The methodologic quality of studies of diagnostic tests also lags behind the quality of studies of therapeutic interventions. Statistical methods to combine diagnostic accuracy data are more complex and not as well developed, leading to difficulties in the interpretation of results. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Technology Assessment Program has adopted a 6-level framework for evaluating diagnostic technologies. The model emphasizes the need for systematic reviews of diagnostic test studies to go beyond the assessment of technical feasibility and accuracy to examine the impact of the test on health outcomes. In this paper, we use examples from 3 Evidence-based Practice Center reports to illustrate 3 challenges reviewers may face when reviewing diagnostic test literature: finding relevant studies, assessing methodologic quality of diagnostic accuracy studies, and synthesizing studies that evaluate tests in different patient populations or use different outcomes.

While higher response rates for assay-guided therapy have been observed, differences may be attributable to bias or confounding. Little evidence on survival is available. These results do not establish the relative effectiveness of assay-guided treatment and empiric treatment. Randomized trials are needed.

No abstract

No abstract