National Coverage Analysis (NCA) Tracking Sheet

Positron Emission Tomography (FDG) for Brain, Cervical, Ovarian, Pancreatic, Small Cell Lung, and Testicular Cancers

CAG-00181N

Issue

Positron emission tomography (PET) is a non-invasive imaging procedure used to assess metabolic activity and perfusion in various organ systems in the human body. Images are obtained from positron-emitting radioisotopes that are usually administered intravenously. 2-[F18] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) is used in PET imaging procedures. The requestors asked that Medicare expand coverage of FDG-PET to include certain indications for the following cancers: brain, testicular, small cell lung, cervical, and pancreatic.

The following are the indications CMS has been asked to review for coverage:

FDG-PET for brain tumors
How does the diagnostic test performance of FDG-PET, as an adjunct to conventional imaging (e.g., CT, MRI), compare to conventional imaging alone with respect to the following clinical situations:

  1. In performing guided lesion biopsy of recurrent low-grade brain tumors in patients with an indeterminate MRI?

  2. In distinguishing high-grade from low-grade tumors and distinguishing tumor from radiation necrosis in recurrent brain lesions?

How does the diagnostic test performance of FDG-PET, as an adjunct to biopsy, compare to biopsy alone with respect to the following clinical situation:

  1. In the initial grading of the degree of malignancy for patients with primary brain tumors when the initial biopsy result was indeterminate grade II/III glioma?

FDG-PET for cervical cancer
How does the diagnostic test performance of FDG-PET compare to conventional imaging (e.g., CT, lympangiography, chest radiograph, IV pyelography) in the detection of pre-treatment metastases in newly diagnosed cervical cancer?

How does the diagnostic test performance of FDG-PET compare to conventional imaging (e.g., CT, MRI) in the following clinical situations:

  1. In detection of residual cervical cancer following treatment (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or combination)?

  2. In detection of recurrent cervical cancer following treatment (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or combination)?

FDG-PET for ovarian cancer
How does the diagnostic test performance of FDG-PET as an adjunct to conventional imaging (e.g., CT, MRI) compare to conventional imaging alone in the following clinical situations:

  1. In staging at the time of initial diagnosis?

  2. In detecting recurrent disease following treatment (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or combination)?

    As a subset within this indication, does FDG-PET accurately and reliably detect recurrence in a patient with a history of ovarian cancer who has a rising CA-125 titre and a negative CT:

    a) In determining if there has been a recurrence of the tumor?
    b) In localizing, if present, such recurrence?
    c) In yielding appropriate staging of such recurrence?

  3. In monitoring the effect of chemotherapy?

FDG-PET for pancreatic cancer
How does the diagnostic test performance of FDG-PET as an adjunct to conventional imaging (e.g., CT, MRI, ultrasound) compare to conventional imaging alone in the following clinical situations:

  1. In differentiating benign from malignant pancreatic lesions?

  2. In detecting metastatic pancreatic cancer?

If adjunctive use of FDG-PET is superior to conventional imaging alone for detection of metastatic pancreatic cancer, for what subpopulation(s) of patients has this superiority been shown?

How does FDG-PET compare to conventional imaging (e.g., MRI, CT, ultrasound) for detection of residual or recurrent disease following treatment of primary pancreatic cancer?

FDG-PET for small cell lung cancer
How does the diagnostic test performance of FDG-PET compare to conventional imaging modalities (e.g., CT, MRI) with respect to the following clinical situations:

  1. In staging to determine the true extent of disease at initial diagnosis in patients with SCLC?

  2. In restaging post treatment to evaluate the response to initial treatment (detect residual or new disease sites) in patients with SCLC?

  3. In diagnosing occult small cell lung cancer in patients with paraneoplastic syndrome(s) commonly associated with this neoplasm?

FDG-PET for testicular cancer
In patients with an established diagnosis of pure seminomas or non-seminomatous germ cell tumors, how does the diagnostic test performance of FDG-PET compare to conventional imaging modalities (e.g., CT, MRI) or histology with respect to the following clinical situations:

  1. For initial staging?

  2. In evaluation of residual masses or suspected recurrent disease to reliably distinguish between viable tumor and fibrosis/necrosis?

  3. In determining if there has been a recurrence of tumor in patients with rising serum tumor markers and a normal CT?

Benefit Category

Diagnostic Tests (other)

Requestor Information

Requestor Name Requestor Letter
See Actions Taken N/A
N/A

Important Dates

Formal Request Accepted and Review Initiated
02/24/2003
Expected NCA Completion Date
04/12/2004
Public Comment Period
02/23/2004 - 03/24/2004
Proposed Decision Memo Due Date
Proposed Decision Memo Released
11/01/2004
Proposed Decision Memo Public Comment Period
11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
Decision Memo Released
01/28/2005
Comments for this NCA
View Public Comments

Contacts

Lead Analysts
Stuart Caplan
Lead Medical Officers

Medicare Benefit Category Determination Date

Actions Taken

February 24, 2003

CMS accepts the 5 formal requests for a National Coverage Determination. CMS believes that a technology assessment (TA) will better inform its determination. To ensure a consistent approach to each request, CMS will commission a single TA to address all 5 coverage requests. CMS will post the TA questions on this tracking sheet once they are finalized.

The comment period for these indications ends on March 26, 2003.

The official due date is 60 days after CMS receives the final TA. The current tentative due date is September 1, 2003.

Requestors:
Brain cancer
Henry S. Friedman, MD
Department of Surgery
Duke University Medical Center

Cervical cancer
Perry W. Grigsby, MD, MBA, FACR
Department of Radiation Oncology
Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine

Pancreatic cancer
Anthony F. Shields, MD, PhD
Karmanos Cancer Institute
Wayne State University

Small cell lung cancer
Ramaswamy Govindan, MD
Department of Internal Medicine
Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine

Testicular cancer
James W. Fletcher, MD
Department of Radiology
Indiana University School of Medicine

Lead Analyst for Brain
Betty Shaw
410-786-4165

Lead Analyst for Cervical & Pancreatic
Patricia Brocato-Simons
410-786-0261

Lead Analyst for Testicular & Small cell lung
Stuart Caplan
410-786-8564

March 24, 2003

CMS accepts a formal request for FDG-PET for ovarian cancer.  A new 30-day comment period begins for this indication and ends on April 23, 2003.  Due to the complexity of the issues and similarities to the evaluation of FDG-PET for cervical cancer, we will include FDG-PET for ovarian cancer with the technology assessment that we have commissioned for the other oncologic indications.

Requestor:
Ovarian cancer
Sheryl Eisenbarth
Patient Advocate

Alan J. Fischman, MD, PhD
Department of Radiology
Massachusetts General Hospital

Lead Analyst for Ovarian
Katherine Tillman
(410) 786-9252

September 23, 2003

CMS has not yet received the technology assessment. The official due date continues to be 60 days after CMS receives the final TA. [The date entered in the completion date field is an approximation.]

February 12, 2004

Technology assessment posted. The new due date is 60 calendar days from posting date.

October 14, 2004

CMS has been determining coverage of PET scans for cancers on an indication by indication basis for each cancer. We have received numerous comments requesting that we develop a different process. Therefore, in addition to continuing to review the evidence for the six specific cancers in this NCA, we are expanding this NCA to also address a potentially different process for determining when a PET scan is reasonably and necessary for all cancers that we currently noncover. We welcome public comment suggesting how CMS might do this.

November 1, 2004

We are posting our proposed decision memorandum. We invite comments on the decision memorandum and on the proposal to establish a registry. We are specifically interested in the structure and function of that registry.

See table of Proposed PET Oncology Coverage Indications [PDF, 53KB]

November 8, 2004

Appendix C [PDF, 53KB]  (Proposed PET Oncology Indications) updated to correct breast cancer and thyroid cancer coverage information.

November 1, 2004
through
December 1, 2004

CMS receives public comments on proposed decision memorandum. Public comments can be viewed at:https://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewpubliccomments.asp?nca_id=92

January 28, 2005