Cost comparison of 111In-DTPA-octreotide scintigraphy and 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT for staging enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy.

UNLABELLED: We analyzed the results of conventional imaging and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy in 150 patients with neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: The outcomes of combinations of imaging modalities were compared in terms of tumor localization, effect on patient management and financial costs. RESULTS: In patients with carcinoids, a combination of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, chest radiograph and ultrasound of the upper abdomen had a high sensitivity for tumor localization, and detected lesions in patients in whom no tumor was found with conventional imaging, justifying the greater cost. In patients with medullary thyroid carcinoma, somatostatin receptor scintigraphy adds little to the information obtained with conventional imaging and therefore should not be used as a screening method. In patients with paraganglioma, CT scanning of the region where a paraganglioma is suspected, followed by somatostatin receptor scintigraphy to detect multicentricity has the best cost effectiveness ratio. In patients with gastrinomas, the combination of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and CT scanning of the upper abdomen had the highest sensitivity. The relatively high cost of this process is outweighed by its demonstrating a resectable tumor. In patients with insulinomas, the highest yield against the lowest cost is obtained if somatostatin receptor scintigraphy is only performed if CT scanning fails to demonstrate the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy should be performed in patients with small-cell lung carcinoma because it can lead to a change of stage and may demonstrate otherwise undetected brain metastases. The cost increase is outweighed by the omission of unnecessary treatment for some of the patients and by the possibility of irradiating brain metastases at an early stage, which may lead to a better quality of life.

Economic/reimbursement issues in MR imaging with gadolinium contrast agents.

Implementation of an accurate, reliable index of cost effectiveness would help to advance technology assessment and reimbursement of MR imaging procedures, including gadolinium enhancement. To this end, an objective, consensual measure that satisfies the need for "gold-standard" confirmation of diagnostic impressions in routine clinical practice and limits interpreter bias has been developed. Eponymously termed Diagnostic Merit, this barometer is expressed as the percentage of independent judges confirming diagnostic impressions entered by case-blinded radiologists assigned unenhanced and enhanced image sets for interpretation. The judges, who are informed of clinical indications, clinical follow-up, and unblinded diagnostic interpretation of the MR scans, confirm only those case-blind interpretations deemed "close enough for diagnostic utility" to actual clinical profiles. According to this method, gadopentetate dimeglumine has been shown to be cost effective by promoting optimal diagnostic performance. This improvement in utility offsets the cost of the gadolinium contrast agent. Efficacies of gadodiamide and gadoteridol, two other contrast agents in development, have been demonstrated by other measures but are probably also evaluable through the Diagnostic Merit method. CPT-4 codes for contrast-enhanced MR imaging are reviewed.