PURPOSE: Although somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography (PET)/CT is gaining increasing popularity and has shown its diagnostic superiority in several studies, (111)In-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-octreotide is still the current standard for diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumours (NET). The aim of this study was to compare the costs for the two diagnostic tests and the respective consequential costs. METHODS: From January 2009 to July 2009, 51 consecutive patients with enteropancreatic NET who underwent contrast-enhanced (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT (n = 29) or (111)In-DTPA-octreotide (mean 3 whole-body scans plus 1.6 low-dose single photon emission computed tomography/CT; n = 22) were included. For cost analysis, direct costs (equipment) and variable costs (material, labour) per examination were calculated. Additionally required CT and/or MRI examinations within the staging process were assessed as consequential costs. An additional deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: A (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT examination yielded total costs (equipment, personnel and material costs) of 548 euro. On the other hand, an (111)In-DTPA-octreotide examination resulted in 827 euro total costs. Costs for equipment and material had a share of 460 euro/720 euro for (68)Ga-DOTATOC/(111)In-DTPA-octreotide and labour costs of 89 euro/106 euro. With (68)Ga-DOTATOC additional MRI had to be performed in 7% of the patients resulting in a mean of 20 euro for supplementary imaging per patient; 82% of patients with (111)In-DTPA-octreotide needed additional MRI and/or CT resulting in mean additional costs of 161 euro per patient. CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT was considerably cheaper than (111)In-DTPA-octreotide with respect to both material and personnel costs. Furthermore, by using (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT considerably fewer additional examinations were needed reducing the consequential costs significantly.
PURPOSE: Although somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography (PET)/CT is gaining increasing popularity and has shown its diagnostic superiority in several studies, (111)In-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-octreotide is still the current standard for diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumours (NET). The aim of this study was to compare the costs for the two diagnostic tests and the respective consequential costs. METHODS: From January 2009 to July 2009, 51 consecutive patients with enteropancreatic NET who underwent contrast-enhanced (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT (n = 29) or (111)In-DTPA-octreotide (mean 3 whole-body scans plus 1.6 low-dose single photon emission computed tomography/CT; n = 22) were included. For cost analysis, direct costs (equipment) and variable costs (material, labour) per examination were calculated. Additionally required CT and/or MRI examinations within the staging process were assessed as consequential costs. An additional deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: A (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT examination yielded total costs (equipment, personnel and material costs) of 548 euro. On the other hand, an (111)In-DTPA-octreotide examination resulted in 827 euro total costs. Costs for equipment and material had a share of 460 euro/720 euro for (68)Ga-DOTATOC/(111)In-DTPA-octreotide and labour costs of 89 euro/106 euro. With (68)Ga-DOTATOC additional MRI had to be performed in 7% of the patients resulting in a mean of 20 euro for supplementary imaging per patient; 82% of patients with (111)In-DTPA-octreotide needed additional MRI and/or CT resulting in mean additional costs of 161 euro per patient. CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT was considerably cheaper than (111)In-DTPA-octreotide with respect to both material and personnel costs. Furthermore, by using (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT considerably fewer additional examinations were needed reducing the consequential costs significantly.
Authors: H R Balon; S J Goldsmith; B A Siegel; E B Silberstein; E P Krenning; O Lang; K J Donohoe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael Gabriel; Clemens Decristoforo; Dorota Kendler; Georg Dobrozemsky; Dirk Heute; Christian Uprimny; Peter Kovacs; Elisabeth Von Guggenberg; Reto Bale; Irene J Virgolini Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: E P Krenning; W H Bakker; P P Kooij; W A Breeman; H Y Oei; M de Jong; J C Reubi; T J Visser; C Bruns; D J Kwekkeboom Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1992-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M de Jong; W H Bakker; E P Krenning; W A Breeman; M E van der Pluijm; B F Bernard; T J Visser; E Jermann; M Béhé; P Powell; H R Mäcke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1997-04
Authors: I Buchmann; M Henze; S Engelbrecht; M Eisenhut; A Runz; M Schäfer; T Schilling; S Haufe; T Herrmann; U Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: S Van Binnebeek; B Vanbilloen; K Baete; C Terwinghe; M Koole; F M Mottaghy; P M Clement; L Mortelmans; K Bogaerts; K Haustermans; K Nackaerts; E Van Cutsem; C Verslype; A Verbruggen; C M Deroose Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael K Schultz; Dirk Mueller; Richard P Baum; G Leonard Watkins; Wouter A P Breeman Journal: Appl Radiat Isot Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: Samira M Sadowski; Vladimir Neychev; Corina Millo; Joanna Shih; Naris Nilubol; Peter Herscovitch; Karel Pacak; Stephen J Marx; Electron Kebebew Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 44.544