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.      «

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 calculat...     »