Background Diagnostic tests, particularly diagnostic imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET), have the potential to make important contributions to improved patient care and medical decision making. The expense of these tests is justified to the extent that they improve diagnostic and treatment decisions, and ultimately health outcomes. Clinical studies evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic tests and assessing their influence on decision making are essential to setting health policy and directing patient care.
Purpose We present the design and participant baseline characteristics of the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 027 (Prospective Study of the Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) – Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Imaging in the Management of Patients with Solitary Pulmonary Nodules (SNAP).
Methods SNAP is a prospective, multi-site diagnostic trial to evaluate the efficacy of PET and CT for characterizing solitary pulmonary nodules. The study incorporated an assessment of the impact of these imaging modalities on clinical decision making.
Results Between January 1999 and June 2001, 10 SNAP sites enrolled 532 participants with a mean age of 66 years (SD ± 11.3), of whom 97.3% were male. A history of smoking was claimed by 93.6% of participants, with 45.7% of all participants smoking at time of enrollment. Those still smoking had an average exposure of 56.8 pack-years, while those who had quit smoking prior to enrollment had an exposure of 58.1 pack-years.
Limitations The study design reduced most common biases, but some degree of selection bias and verification bias remained. We sought to minimize verification bias by use of a dual reference standard.
Conclusion SNAP is a diagnostic test study that was designed to minimize bias and to assess a test's impact on clinical decision making, providing the kind of information most needed by clinicians and health policy makers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Hawryluk M. Medicare panel mulls oversight of outpatient imaging services. Available at: amednews. com. American Medical Association, 2004.
2.
2. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S et al. Empirical evidence of design related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA1999; 282: 1061–1166.
3.
3. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Am J Radiol2003. 181: 51–56.
4.
4. Gatsonis C, McNeil BJ. Collaborative evaluations of diagnostic tests: experience of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology1990. 175: 571–575.
5.
5. Flynn KL, Adams EJ. Positron emission tomography: technology assessment brief (Report 3). Boston, MA, Veterans Administration Health Services Research and Development Service, 1996.
7. Gatsonis C. Design of evaluations of imaging technologies: development of a new paradigm. Acad Radiol2000; 7: 681–683.
8.
8. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decision Making1991; 11: 88–94.
9.
9. Houn F, Bright RA, Bushar HF et al. Study design in the evaluation of breast cancer imaging technologies. Acad Radiol2000; 7: 684–692.
10.
10. Kosinski AS, Barnhart HX. Accounting for nonignorable verification bias in assessment of diagnostic tests. Biometrics2003; 59: 163–171.
11.
11. Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Caudry DJ et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V. Radiology2001; 219: 785–792.
12.
12. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammo-graphic Screening Trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology2005; 236: 404–412.
13.
13. Ost D, Fein AM, Feinsilver SH. The solitary pulmonary nodule. New Engl J Med2003; 348: 2535–2242.
14.
14. Zhou X-H.Correcting for verification bias in studies of a diagnostic test's accuracy. Statist Meth Med Res1998; 7: 337–353.
15.
15. Dorfman DD, Alf E.Maximum likelihood estimations of parameters of signal detection theory and determination of confidence intervals. Rating method data. J Math Psychol1969; 6: 487–496.
16.
16. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A Method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology1983; 148: 839–843.
17.
17. Zhou X-H, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK.Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine, 1st edn.Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics ed. Balding DJ et al. Wiley, 2002.
18.
18. Fleiss JL.Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 1st edn.Wiley Series on Probability and Mathematical Statistics, ed. Bradley RA et al. Wiley, 1973.
19.
19. Nuclear Medicine Facilities. Retrieved 12 May 2004 from, www.ami-imaging.org/public/petcenters.htm
20.
20. Form 10-K. Knoxville, TN: CTI Molecular Imaging, 2002.
21.
21. Berger M, Gould MK, Barnett PG. The cost of positron emission tomography in six United States Veteran's Affairs hospitals and two academic medical centers. Am J Radiol2003; 181: 359–365.
22.
22. Eisenberg JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA1999; 282: 1865–1169.
23.
23. Perry S, Thamer M. Medical innovation and the critical role of health technology assessment. JAMA1999; 282: 1869–1872.
24.
24. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak C, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA2001; 285: 914–924.
25.
25. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. New Engl J Med1978; 299: 926–930.
26.
26. Kent DL, Haynor DR, Longstreth WT, Larson EB.The clinical efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in neuroimaging. Ann Intern Med1994; 120: 856–871.
27.
27. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics1983; 39: 207–215.
28.
28. Fletcher JW, Adams E, Flynn K, Papathofanis FJ.Design of prospective clinical trials for assessment of PET. Clin Positron Imag1998; 1: 201–211.
29.
29. Tsushima Y, Aoki J, Endo K. Contribution of the diagnostic test to the physician's diagnostic thinking: new method to evaluate the effect. Acad Radiol2003; 10: 751–755.
30.
30. Zanetti M, Strehle JK, Kundert H-P, Zollinger H, Hodler J. Morton neuroma: effect of mr imaging findings on diagnostic thinking and therapeutic decisions. Radiology1999; 213: 583–588.
31.
31. Boehm T, Willmann JK, Hilfiker PR et al. Thin-section CT of the lung: does electrocardiographic triggering influence diagnosis. Radiology2003; 229: 483–491.
32.
32. Gillan MGC, Gilbert FJ, Andrew JE et al. Influence of imaging on clinical decision making in the treatment of lower back pain. Radiology2001; 220: 393–399.
33.
33. Jarvik JG, Hollingsworth W, Martin B et al. Rapid magnetic resonance imaging vs. radiographs for patients with low back pain. JAMA2003; 289: 2810–2818.
34.
34. Gilbert FJ, Grant AM, Gillian MG et al. Low back pain: influence of early Mr imaging or CT on treatment and outcome – multi-center randomized trial. Radiology2004; 231: 343–351.
35.
35. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med2000; 41: 1369–1379.
36.
36. Steinert HC, von Schulthess GK. Initial clinical experience using a new integrated in-line PET-CT system. Br J Radiol2002; 75(suppl): S36–S38.
37.
37. ACR Standard for the Performance of Thoracic Computed Tomography, in ACR Standards, 1995 (Res. 1); amended 1995 (Res. 24, 53). American College of Radiology.
