AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy and the cost-effectiveness of this technique in the detection of gastroenteropancreatic carcinoid tumors and their metastases in comparison with conventional imaging methods. METHODS: Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) was performed in 24 patients with confirmed carcinoids and 7 under investigation. The results were compared with those of conventional imaging methods (chest X-ray, upper abdominal ultrasound, chest CT, upper and lower abdominal CT). Also a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing the cost in Euro of several combinations of SRS with conventional imaging modalities. RESULTS: SRS visualized primary or metastatic sites in 71.0% of cases and 61.3% of conventional imagings. The diagnostic sensitivity of the method was higher in patients with suspected lesions (85.7% vs 57.1%). SRS was less sensitive in the detection of metastatic sites (78.9% vs 84.2%). The undetectable lesions by SRS metastatic sites were all in the liver. Between several imaging combinations, the combinations of chest X-ray/upper abdominal CT/SRS and chest CT/upper abdominal CT/SRS showed the highest sensitivity (88.75%) in terms of the number of detected lesions. The combinations of chest X-ray/upper abdominal US/SRS and chest CT/upper abdominal ultrasound /SRS yielded also a quite similar sensitivity (82%). Compared to the cost of the four sensitive combinations the combination of chest X-ray/upper abdominal ultrasound/SRS presented the lower cost, 1183.99 Euro vs 1251.75 Euro for chest CT/upper abdominal ultrasound/SRS, 1294.93 Euro for chest X/ray/upper abdominal CT/SRS and 1362.75 Euro for chest CT/upper abdominal CT/SRS. CONCLUSION: SRS imaging is a very sensitive method for the detection of gastroenteropancreatic carcinoids but is less sensitive than ultrasound and CT in the detection of liver metastases. Between several imaging combinations, the combination of chest X-ray/upper abdominal CT/SRS shows the highest sensitivity with a cost of 1294.93 Euro.
AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy and the cost-effectiveness of this technique in the detection of gastroenteropancreatic carcinoid tumors and their metastases in comparison with conventional imaging methods. METHODS: Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) was performed in 24 patients with confirmed carcinoids and 7 under investigation. The results were compared with those of conventional imaging methods (chest X-ray, upper abdominal ultrasound, chest CT, upper and lower abdominal CT). Also a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing the cost in Euro of several combinations of SRS with conventional imaging modalities. RESULTS:SRS visualized primary or metastatic sites in 71.0% of cases and 61.3% of conventional imagings. The diagnostic sensitivity of the method was higher in patients with suspected lesions (85.7% vs 57.1%). SRS was less sensitive in the detection of metastatic sites (78.9% vs 84.2%). The undetectable lesions by SRS metastatic sites were all in the liver. Between several imaging combinations, the combinations of chest X-ray/upper abdominal CT/SRS and chest CT/upper abdominal CT/SRS showed the highest sensitivity (88.75%) in terms of the number of detected lesions. The combinations of chest X-ray/upper abdominal US/SRS and chest CT/upper abdominal ultrasound /SRS yielded also a quite similar sensitivity (82%). Compared to the cost of the four sensitive combinations the combination of chest X-ray/upper abdominal ultrasound/SRS presented the lower cost, 1183.99 Euro vs 1251.75 Euro for chest CT/upper abdominal ultrasound/SRS, 1294.93 Euro for chest X/ray/upper abdominal CT/SRS and 1362.75 Euro for chest CT/upper abdominal CT/SRS. CONCLUSION:SRS imaging is a very sensitive method for the detection of gastroenteropancreatic carcinoids but is less sensitive than ultrasound and CT in the detection of liver metastases. Between several imaging combinations, the combination of chest X-ray/upper abdominal CT/SRS shows the highest sensitivity with a cost of 1294.93 Euro.
Authors: K Joseph; J Stapp; J Reinecke; H Höffken; R Benning; C Neuhaus; M E Trautmann; W B Schwerk; R Arnold Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 1992-06-26 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: W H Bakker; E P Krenning; W A Breeman; P P Kooij; J C Reubi; J W Koper; M de Jong; J S Laméris; T J Visser; S W Lamberts Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1991-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: E P Krenning; D J Kwekkeboom; W H Bakker; W A Breeman; P P Kooij; H Y Oei; M van Hagen; P T Postema; M de Jong; J C Reubi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1993-08
Authors: O Schillaci; F Scopinaro; S Angeletti; R Tavolaro; R Danieli; B Annibale; G Gualdi; G Delle Fave Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 10.057