Abstract
Purpose
From a workflow/cost perspective integrated imaging is not an obvious solution. An analysis of scanning costs as a function of system cost and relevant imaging times is presented. This analysis ignores potential clinical advantages of integrated imaging.
Methods
An analysis comparing separate vs integrated imaging costs was performed by deriving pertinent equations and using reasonable cost numbers for imaging devices and systems, room and other variable costs. Integrated systems were divided into those sequentially and simultaneously. Sequential scanning can be done with two devices placed in a single or in two different scanning rooms. Graphs were derived which represent the cost difference between integrated imaging system options and their separate counterparts vs scanning time on one of the devices and cost ratio of an integrated system and its counterpart of separate devices.
Results
Integrated systems are favoured by the fact that patients have to be up- and downloaded only once. If imaging times become longer than patient changing times, imaging on separate devices is advantageous. An integrated imaging cost advantage is achieved if the integrated systems typically and overall cost three fourths or less of the separate systems. If PET imaging takes 15 min or less, PET/CT imaging costs less than separate PET and CT imaging, while this time is below 5 min for SPECT/CT. A two-room integrated system has the added advantage that patient download time is not cost relevant, when imaging times on the two devices differ by more than the patient download time.
Conclusion
PET/CT scanning is a cost-effective implementation of an integrated system unlike most current SPECT/CT systems. Integration of two devices in two rooms by a shuttle seems the way how to make PET/MR cost-effective and may well also be a design option for SPECT/CT systems.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 1998;25:2046–53.
Chowdhury FU, Scarsbrook AF. The role of hybrid SPECT-CT in oncology: current and emerging clinical applications. Clin Radiol 2008;63:241–51.
Townsend DW. Dual-modality imaging: combining anatomy and function. J Nucl Med 2008;49:938–55. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.051276.
Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Valenta I, Husmann L, Scheffel H, Duerst V, et al. Cardiac image fusion from stand-alone SPECT and CT: clinical experience. J Nucl Med 2007;48:696–703. doi:48/5/696[pii].
Slomka PJ, Baum RP. Multimodality image registration with software: state-of-the-art. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36 Suppl 1:S44–55.
Judenhofer MS, Catana C, Swann BK, Siegel SB, Jung WI, Nutt RE, et al. PET/MR images acquired with a compact MR-compatible PET detector in a 7-T magnet. Radiology 2007;244:807–14.
Schlemmer HP, Pichler BJ, Schmand M, Burbar Z, Michel C, Ladebeck R, et al. Simultaneous MR/PET imaging of the human brain: feasibility study. Radiology 2008;248:1028–35.
Delso G, Ziegler S. PET/MRI system design. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36 Suppl 1:S86–92.
Hofmann M, Pichler B, Schölkopf B, Beyer T. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36 Suppl 1:S93–104.
von Schulthess GK, Schlemmer HP. A look ahead: PET/MR versus PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36 Suppl 1:S3–9.
Nassalski A, Moszynski M, Syntfeld-Kazuch A, Swiderski L, Szczesniak T, Wolski D, et al. Application of Hamamatsu S8550 APD array to the common PET/CT detector. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2007;5:3309–13.
Garcia EV, Faver TL. Advances in nuclear cardiology instrumentation: clinical potential of SPECT and PET. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 2009;2:230–7
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An Editorial Commentary on this paper is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1389-1
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
von Schulthess, G.K., Burger, C. Integrating imaging modalities: what makes sense from a workflow perspective?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37, 980–990 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1378-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1378-4