In Australia, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with low-dose computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) is currently only funded for cancer staging-related indications. A recent multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that FDG-PET/CT, compared with standard of care computed tomography (CT) imaging, improved antimicrobial management and the outcomes of patients with persistent and recurrent neutropenic fever. There is potential value in expanding the use of FDG-PET/CT as a diagnostic tool for this high-risk population. We conducted an economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective alongside the randomized trial and compared FDG-PET/CT with standard CT up to 6 months after the scans.

Case report forms were used to collect resource utilization data and length of hospitalization. Effectiveness was measured as the number of patients with antimicrobial rationalization and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from patient-reported trial-based health-related quality of life. Generalized linear models (GLM) were used to analyze costs and outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each of the outcomes were calculated and interpreted as the cost per patient with antimicrobial rationalization and cost per QALY gained. To account for sampling, we performed bootstrapping with 1,000 replications using the recycled predictions method.

The adjusted healthcare costs were lower in the FDG-PET/CT group (mean AUD49,563, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 36,867, 65,133; equivalent to USD34,268, 95% CI: 25,490, 45,033) compared with the standard CT group (mean AUD57,574, 95% CI: 44,837, 73,347; equivalent to USD39,807, 95% CI: 31,000, 50,712). The magnitude of differences in QALYs between the two groups was small (0.001; 95% CI: -0.001, -0.001). When simulated 1,000 times, our analysis showed that across both outcomes FDG-PET/CT was the dominant strategy as it was cheaper and had better outcomes than standard CT in 74 percent of simulations.

FDG-PET/CT is cost effective when compared with standard CT for investigating persistent or recurrent neutropenic fever in high-risk patients. Aligning economic evaluations with clinical studies is key to an integrated evidence generation approach for supporting funding for FDG-PET/CT in this patient group.