AIM: To systematically review published data on the cost-effectiveness of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography(FDG-PET) or PET/computed tomography(PET/CT) in tumours other than lung cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of studies published in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase databases through the 10th of October in 2013 was carried out. A search algorithm based on a combination of the terms:(1) “PET” or “ PET/computed tomography(PET/CT)” or “positron emission tomography”; and(2) “cost-effectiveness” or “cost-utility” or “cost-efficacy” or “technology assessment” or “health technology assessment” was used. Only cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses in English language were included. Exclusion criteria were:(1) articles not within the field of interest of this review;(2) review articles, editorials or letters, conference proceedings; and(3) outcome evaluation studies, cost studies or health technology assessment reports. For each included study, information was col-lected concerning basic study, type of tumours evaluated, perspective/type of study, results, unit and comparison alternatives. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. Head and neck tumours were evaluated in 4 articles, lymphoma in 4, colon-rectum tumours in 3 and breast tumours in 2. Only one article was retrieved for melanoma, oesophagus and ovary tumours. Cost-effectiveness results of FDG-PET or PET/CT ranged from dominated to dominant. CONCLUSION: Literature evidence about the costeffectiveness of FDG-PET or PET/CT in tumours other than lung cancer is still limited. Nevertheless, FDGPET or PET/CT seems to be cost-effective in selective indications in oncology(staging and restaging of head and neck tumours, staging and treatment evaluation in lymphoma). AIM: To systematically review published data on the cost-effectiveness of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) or PET / computed tomography (PET / CT) in tumors other than lung cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of studies published in PubMed / MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase databases through the 10th of October was 2013. was carried out. A search algorithm based on a combination of the terms: (1) “PET ” or “PET / computed tomography / CT) ”or “ positron emission tomography ”and (2) “ cost-effectiveness ”or “ cost-utility ”or “ cost-efficacy ”or “ technology assessment ”or Excluding criteria were: (1) articles not within the field of interest of this review; (2) review articles, editorials or letters, conference proceedings; and (3) outcome evaluation studies, cost studies or health technology assessment reports. For eac h included study, information was col-lected concerning basic study, type of tumors evaluated, perspective / type of study, results, unit and comparison alternatives. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. Head and neck tumors were classified in 4 articles, lymphoma in 4, colon-rectum tumors in 3 and breast tumours in 2. Only one article was retrieved for melanoma, oesophagus and ovary tumors. Cost-effectiveness results of FDG-PET or PET / CT ranged from dominated to dominant. CONCLUSION: Literature evidence about The costeffectiveness of FDG-PET or PET / CT in tumours other than lung cancer is still limited. Nevertheless, FDGPET or PET / CT seems to be cost-effective in selective indications in oncology (staging and restaging of head and neck tumours, staging and treatment evaluation in lymphoma.