Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET–CT in oncological patients: analysis of informal care costs in cost–benefit assessment

  • Resource Management and Health Economics
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The authors analysed the impact of nonmedical costs (travel, loss of productivity) in an economic analysis of PET–CT (positron-emission tomography–computed tomography) performed with standard contrast-enhanced CT protocols (CECT).

Materials and methods

From October to November 2009, a total of 100 patients referred to our institute were administered a questionnaire to evaluate the nonmedical costs of PET–CT. In addition, the medical costs (equipment maintenance and depreciation, consumables and staff) related to PET–CT performed with CECT and PET–CT with low-dose nonenhanced CT and separate CECT were also estimated.

Results

The medical costs were 919.3 euro for PET–CT with separate CECT, and 801.3 euro for PET–CT with CECT. Therefore, savings of approximately 13 % are possible. Moreover, savings in nonmedical costs can be achieved by reducing the number of hospital visits required by patients undergoing diagnostic imaging.

Conclusions

Nonmedical costs heavily affect patients’ finances as well as having an indirect impact on national health expenditure. Our results show that PET–CT performed with standard dose CECT in a single session provides benefits in terms of both medical and nonmedical costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coleman RE, Delbeke D, Guiberteau MJ et al (2005) Concurrent PET/CT with an integrated imaging system: intersociety dialogue from the joint working group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. J Nucl Med 46:1225–1239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Czernin J, Schelbert HR (2007) PET/CT in cancer patient management. Introduction. J Nucl Med 48(Suppl 1):2S–3S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Townsend DW, Carney JP, Yap JT et al (2004) PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med 45(Suppl 1):4S–14S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L et al (2003) Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 44:1200–1209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF et al (2003) Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 348:2500–2507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Saif MW, Tzannou I, Makrilia N et al (2010) Role and cost effectiveness of PET/CT in management of patients with cancer. Yale J Biol Med 83:53–65

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Juweid ME, Cheson BD (2006) Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 354:496–507

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS et al (2007) Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:571–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Seam P, Juweid ME, Cheson BD (2007) The role of FDG-PET scans in patients with lymphoma. Blood 110:3507–3516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kanzaki R, Higashiyama M, Maeda J et al (2010) Clinical value of F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography in patients with non-small cell lung cancer after potentially curative surgery: experience with 241 patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 10:1009–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Keidar Z, Haim N, Guralnik L et al (2004) PET/CT using 18F-FDG in suspected lung cancer recurrence: diagnostic value and impact on patient management. J Nucl Med 45:1640–1646

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chung HH, Jo H, Kang WJ et al (2007) Clinical impact of integrated PET/CT on the management of suspected cervical cancer recurrence. Gynecol Oncol 104:529–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heusner T, Golitz P, Hamami M et al (2011) “One-stop-shop” staging: should we prefer FDG-PET/CT or MRI for the detection of bone metastases? Eur J Radiol 78:430–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bibbolino C, Accarino B, Benea G et al (2012) Modello di appropriatezza prestazionale quali-quantitativa in Diagnostica per Immagini. Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica

  15. Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K et al (2007) Value of contrast-enhanced multiphase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging. Br J Radiol 80:437–445

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K et al (2007) Low dose non-enhanced CT versus standard dose contrast-enhanced CT in combined PET/CT protocols for staging and therapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:36–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Soyka JD, Veit-Haibach P, Strobel K et al (2008) Staging pathways in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: is contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT the diagnostic tool of choice? J Nucl Med 49:354–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Orlacchio A, Schillaci O, Gaspari E et al (2012) Role of [18F]-FDG-PET/MDCT in evaluating early response in patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Radiol Med 117:1250–1263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232:735–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Willowson KP, Bailey EA, Bailey DL (2012) A retrospective evaluation of radiation dose associated with low dose FDG protocols in whole-body PET/CT. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 35:49–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schulman KA and Yabroff KR (1995) Measuring the cost-effectiveness of cancer care. Oncology (Williston Park) 9:523–530, 533; discussion 533–538

    Google Scholar 

  22. Alsarraf R, Jung CJ, Perkins J et al (1999) Measuring the indirect and direct costs of acute otitis media. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:12–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fazio F, Trovò M, Saita M et al (2005) Valutazione economica di trattamenti radioterapici effettuati con ipofrazionamento di dose. http://www.iss.it/binary/impa/cont/alleg2801053RelIpofrazionamento

  24. Yankeelov TE, Peterson TE, Abramson RG et al (2012) Simultaneous PET-MRI in oncology: a solution looking for a problem? Magn Reson Imaging 30:1342–1356

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Antonio Orlacchio, Anna Micaela Ciarrapico, Orazio Schillaci, Fabrizio Chegai, Daniela Tosti, Fabrizio D’Alba, Manlio Guazzaroni, Giovanni Simonetti declare no conflict of interest

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Molecular Imaging, Interventional Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Therapy, University Hospital “Tor Vergata”, Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy

    Antonio Orlacchio, Orazio Schillaci, Fabrizio Chegai, Daniela Tosti, Manlio Guazzaroni & Giovanni Simonetti

  2. Department of Public Health, “Tor Vergata” University, Rome, Italy

    Anna Micaela Ciarrapico

  3. Unit of Innovation, Development, Strategic Planning and Management Control, University Hospital “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy

    Fabrizio D’Alba

Authors
  1. Antonio Orlacchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Micaela Ciarrapico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Orazio Schillaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabrizio Chegai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniela Tosti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fabrizio D’Alba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Manlio Guazzaroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giovanni Simonetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Orlacchio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Orlacchio, A., Ciarrapico, A.M., Schillaci, O. et al. PET–CT in oncological patients: analysis of informal care costs in cost–benefit assessment. Radiol med 119, 283–289 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-013-0340-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-013-0340-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation