| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 VA Palo Alto Health Care System, 795 Willow Rd. (152 MPD), Menlo Park, CA
94025.
2 VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, VA HSR&D Health
Economics Resource Center, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
3 Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA 94305.
OBJECTIVE. Positron emission tomography (PET) is a high-cost imaging tool primarily used in oncology, cardiology, and neuropsychiatry. Accurate estimates of the cost of PET are needed to assess its cost effectiveness and determine the appropriate role for this modality in clinical applications. We performed a survey-based cost analysis of PET with FDG by estimating direct, indirect, and capital costs from eight PET centers. A breakdown of the operational budget of PET centers and FDG-compounding facilities is presented along with the costs per scan. Differences in costs between sites that purchase FDG and those that manufacture FDG are also examined.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We sent surveys to managers of eight Veterans Affairs and two non–Veterans Affairs PET scanning and FDG-compounding facilities. The survey included questions about service volume and the direct costs of equipment, personnel, space, supplies, and repairs needed for FDG compounding and PET scanning and interpretation. We estimated the indirect costs associated with FDG compounding, PET scanning, and PET interpretation.
RESULTS. Of the eight sites that responded to our survey, three sites manufacture FDG on-site, three sites purchase FDG, and two sites do both. The total mean cost per scan using manufactured FDG is $1885, and it is $1898 using purchased FDG.
CONCLUSION. PET is expensive. The cost is similar when FDG is manufactured or purchased. Because both PET and cyclotron facilities have high fixed costs, increasing the number of scans obtained and the number of FDG doses manufactured may lead to a decrease in unit costs.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Ducharme, A. L. Goertzen, J. Patterson, and S. Demeter Practical Aspects of 18F-FDG PET When Receiving 18F-FDG from a Distant Supplier J. Nucl. Med. Technol., September 1, 2009; 37(3): 164 - 169. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. P. Shortt, T. G. Gleeson, K. A. Breen, J. McHugh, M. J. O'Connell, P. J. O'Gorman, and S. J. Eustace Whole-Body MRI Versus PET in Assessment of Multiple Myeloma Disease Activity Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2009; 192(4): 980 - 986. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K Strobel, N. Schaefer, C Renner, P Veit-Haibach, D Husarik, A. Koma, and T. Hany Cost-effective therapy remission assessment in lymphoma patients using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography: is an end of treatment exam necessary in all patients? Ann. Onc., April 1, 2007; 18(4): 658 - 664. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Juweid and B. D. Cheson Positron-Emission Tomography and Assessment of Cancer Therapy N. Engl. J. Med., February 2, 2006; 354(5): 496 - 507. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M Kymes, K. Lee, J. W Fletcher, and SNAP (CSP 027) Study Group Assessing diagnostic accuracy and the clinical value of positron emission tomography imaging in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules (SNAP) Clinical Trials, February 1, 2006; 3(1): 31 - 42. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
