Relevant Factors and Optimization in the Management of a PET/CT Facility


Objectives: To analyze the whole PET/CT imaging protocol from patient’s registration to the end of the exam in order to optimize the use of such device. Methods: Data from June to July 2010 and from September to October 2010 were acquired, evaluating the time required by every step of the patient pathway. After the first data acquisition, we identified critical elements connected with the execution of the exams. Results: The results of the first data acquisition reported 12 daily performed exams. By reducing patient turnover time and consequently the device downtime, patient turnover time dropped from 6 min to only 3 min while device downtime dropped from 2 h and 30 min to 1 h and 20 min between the first and the second data collection. The number of daily performed exams increased from 12 to 14. Conclusions: The results show how the analysis of a complex study process such as PET/CT and a continuous activity control allow the identification of critical organizational and structural issues providing necessary information to the optimization in the use of devices with a clear value in public health, in large benefits for the patients and improved management results.

Share and Cite:

A. Orlacchio, A. Ciarrapico, O. Schillaci, M. Guazzaroni, T. Volpi, R. Danieli and G. Simonetti, "Relevant Factors and Optimization in the Management of a PET/CT Facility," Open Journal of Radiology, Vol. 2 No. 4, 2012, pp. 105-109. doi: 10.4236/ojrad.2012.24018.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] A. K. Buck, K. Herrmann, T. Stargardt, T. Dechow, B. J. Krause and J. Schrey?gg, “Economic Evaluation of PET and PET/CT in Oncology: Evidence and Methodologic Approaches,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 3, 2010, pp. 401-412. Hdoi:10.2967/jnumed.108.059584
[2] M. W. Saif, I. Tzannou, N. Makrilia and K. Syrigos, “Role and Cost Effectiveness of PET/CT in Management of Patients with Cancer,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, Vol. 83, No. 2, 2010, pp. 53-65.
[3] M. E. Juweid and B. D. Cheson, “Positron-Emission tomography and Assessment of Cancer Therapy,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 354, No. 5, 2006, pp. 496-507. Hdoi:10.1056/NEJMra050276
[4] A. Orlacchio, O. Schillaci, E. Gaspari, F. Della Gatta, R. Danieli, F. Bolacchi, C. Ragano Caracciolo, A. Mancini and G. Simonetti, “Role of [18F]-FDG-PET/MDCT in Evaluating Early Response in Patients with Hodgkin ’s Lymphoma,” La Radiologia Medica, Vol. 117, No. 7, 2012, pp. 1250-1263. Hdoi:10.1007/s11547-012-0792-8
[5] P. S. Conti, J. S. Keppler and J. M. Halls, “Positron Emission Tomography: A Financial and Operational Analysis,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 162, No. 6, 1994, pp. 1279-1286.
[6] J. S. Keppler and P. S. Conti, “A Cost Analysis of Positron Emission Tomography,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 177, No. 1, 2001, pp. 31-40.
[7] B. Krug, A. S. Pirson, R. Crott and T. Vander Borght, “Is a Methodology Available That Accurately Measures the Cost of an FDG-PET Study?” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2007, pp. 625-657. Hdoi:10.1007/s00259-006-0308-y
[8] S. Halliday and J. H. Thrall, “The Business of PET/CT,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 184, No. 5, 2005, pp. S152-S155.
[9] R. Remonnay, M. Morelle, P. Pommier, F. Giammarile and M. O. Carrere, “Assessing Short Term Effects and Costs at an Early Stage of Innovation: The Use of Positron Emission Tomography on Radiotherapy Treatment Decision Making,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2008, pp. 212220. Hdoi:10.1017/S026646230808029X

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.