PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and discuss economic aspects of whole-body MRI and PET/CT in oncologic staging. Considerations from the perspective of the health care system, the radiologist, and the patients are presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Costs of both whole-body techniques are compared with the conventional radiologic diagnostic recommendations of the AWFM (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wissenschaftlich Medizinischer Fachgesellschaften) in oncologic staging of the five most frequent tumor entities. Temporal and monetary aspects are calculated. Invasive, endoscopic, and endosonographic techniques are regarded as essential and cannot be replaced by other techniques. Thus only the minimal potential for cost reduction is quantified. RESULTS: In the German system there is no cipher to correctly balance whole-body MRI and PET/CT. Using the frequently applied ciphers 5700-5730 and 5378, 5489 (factor 1.0) total costs were 440.45 euros, and adding the cipher for additional series 545.37 euros (60 min examination time) for whole-body MRI and 774.74 euros (879.66 euros) (60/90 min examination time) for whole-body PET/CT. Using the common factor 1.8 costs were 981.66 and 1583.38 euros. On the basis of a simple full cost analysis total costs of whole-body PET/CT were higher than of whole-body MRI by a factor of about 2.0 (about 1123 vs 575 euros). There were substantial monetary and temporal differences between tumor entities. In extended bronchial carcinoma 375.32 euros and 55 min can be saved using whole-body MRI in comparison to conventional recommended techniques and using whole-body PET/CT 88.14 euros and 45 min. In tumor entities of lower stages with thus less essential radiologic diagnostics the potential for cost reduction is substantially lower. CONCLUSION: Whole-body imaging techniques make it possible to reduce the number of necessary separate radiologic examinations and thus time in oncologic staging. A substantial reduction of health care costs seems to be possible in many tumor entities but differences between different tumor entities are decisive.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and discuss economic aspects of whole-body MRI and PET/CT in oncologic staging. Considerations from the perspective of the health care system, the radiologist, and the patients are presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Costs of both whole-body techniques are compared with the conventional radiologic diagnostic recommendations of the AWFM (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wissenschaftlich Medizinischer Fachgesellschaften) in oncologic staging of the five most frequent tumor entities. Temporal and monetary aspects are calculated. Invasive, endoscopic, and endosonographic techniques are regarded as essential and cannot be replaced by other techniques. Thus only the minimal potential for cost reduction is quantified. RESULTS: In the German system there is no cipher to correctly balance whole-body MRI and PET/CT. Using the frequently applied ciphers 5700-5730 and 5378, 5489 (factor 1.0) total costs were 440.45 euros, and adding the cipher for additional series 545.37 euros (60 min examination time) for whole-body MRI and 774.74 euros (879.66 euros) (60/90 min examination time) for whole-body PET/CT. Using the common factor 1.8 costs were 981.66 and 1583.38 euros. On the basis of a simple full cost analysis total costs of whole-body PET/CT were higher than of whole-body MRI by a factor of about 2.0 (about 1123 vs 575 euros). There were substantial monetary and temporal differences between tumor entities. In extended bronchial carcinoma 375.32 euros and 55 min can be saved using whole-body MRI in comparison to conventional recommended techniques and using whole-body PET/CT 88.14 euros and 45 min. In tumor entities of lower stages with thus less essential radiologic diagnostics the potential for cost reduction is substantially lower. CONCLUSION: Whole-body imaging techniques make it possible to reduce the number of necessary separate radiologic examinations and thus time in oncologic staging. A substantial reduction of health care costs seems to be possible in many tumor entities but differences between different tumor entities are decisive.
Authors: Sven C A Michel; Thomas M Keller; Johannes M Fröhlich; Daniel Fink; Rosmarie Caduff; Burkhardt Seifert; Borut Marincek; Rahel A Kubik-Huch Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Müller-Horvat; C Plathow; B Ludescher; M P Lichy; V Canda; C Zindel; H K Hahn; H-O Peitgen; J Kuhnigk; C D Claussen; H-P Schlemmer Journal: Rofo Date: 2007-07
Authors: H E Daldrup-Link; C Franzius; T M Link; D Laukamp; J Sciuk; H Jürgens; O Schober; E J Rummeny Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Michael Fenchel; Martin Requardt; Katrin Tomaschko; Ulrich Kramer; Norbert I Stauder; Thomas Naegele; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Claus D Claussen; Stephan Miller Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Florian M Vogt; Lutz S Freudenberg; Fridun Nazaradeh; Susanne C Goehde; Jörg Barkhausen; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nils F Schreiter; Winfried Brenner; Munenobu Nogami; Ralph Buchert; Alexander Huppertz; Ulrich-Frank Pape; Vikas Prasad; Bernd Hamm; Martin H Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-09-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christian Plathow; Michael Klopp; Christian Thieke; Felix Herth; Andreas Thomas; Astrid Schmaehl; Ivan Zuna; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-03-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ricardo Donners; Raphael Shih Zhu Yiin; Dow-Mu Koh; Katja De Paepe; Ian Chau; Sue Chua; Matthew D Blackledge Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08
Authors: Alessandro Stecco; Francesco Buemi; Martina Quagliozzi; Mariangela Lombardi; Alberto Santagostino; Gian Mauro Sacchetti; Alessandro Carriero Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 2.260