HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - Imaging costs for Medicare cancer patients on the rise

gdpawel · 07-01-2010, 09:30 PM

The current issue of Oncology News International (June 2010, V 19, No 6) quotes a Duke University study of the use of high-tech cancer imaging, with one representative finding being that the average Medicare lung cancer patient receives 11 radiographs, 6 CT scans, a PET scan, and MRI, two echocardiograms, and an ultrasound, all within two years of diagnosis. A study co-author (Dr. Kevan Schulman) asks: "Are all these imaging studies essential? Are they all of value? Is the information really meaningful? What is changing as a result of all this imaging?"

Why is it that oncologists are so accepting of high tech, expensive imaging studies, yet so reluctant to consider the use of cell culture diagnostic tests? For one thing, clinical trials virtually always have time to disease progression as a primary endpoint. Without the imaging studies, one can't get accurate time to progression data. So these are tests performed for the benefit of drug companies seeking new drug approval, for clinical investigators seeking contracts and publications, and for clinicians seeking an easy way to make clinical decisions (and, occasionally, seeking income enhancement).

In the absence of information provided by cell culture testing, oncologists have complete freedom to choose between a myriad of drug regimens. The proven basis on which they make these selections, by and large, is on the benefit a given regimen provides to the oncologist (or academic institution). Cell culture testing threatens this freedom of choice. There's absolutely nothing in it for the oncologist or academic medical center (unlike, for example, imaging studies).

07-01-2010, 09:30 PM	#2
gdpawel Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,080	Imaging Studies The current issue of Oncology News International (June 2010, V 19, No 6) quotes a Duke University study of the use of high-tech cancer imaging, with one representative finding being that the average Medicare lung cancer patient receives 11 radiographs, 6 CT scans, a PET scan, and MRI, two echocardiograms, and an ultrasound, all within two years of diagnosis. A study co-author (Dr. Kevan Schulman) asks: "Are all these imaging studies essential? Are they all of value? Is the information really meaningful? What is changing as a result of all this imaging?" Why is it that oncologists are so accepting of high tech, expensive imaging studies, yet so reluctant to consider the use of cell culture diagnostic tests? For one thing, clinical trials virtually always have time to disease progression as a primary endpoint. Without the imaging studies, one can't get accurate time to progression data. So these are tests performed for the benefit of drug companies seeking new drug approval, for clinical investigators seeking contracts and publications, and for clinicians seeking an easy way to make clinical decisions (and, occasionally, seeking income enhancement). In the absence of information provided by cell culture testing, oncologists have complete freedom to choose between a myriad of drug regimens. The proven basis on which they make these selections, by and large, is on the benefit a given regimen provides to the oncologist (or academic institution). Cell culture testing threatens this freedom of choice. There's absolutely nothing in it for the oncologist or academic medical center (unlike, for example, imaging studies).