This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplemental Data All Versions of this Article: jnmt.109.062950v1 37/3/164    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Ducharme, J. Articles by Demeter, S. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ducharme, J. Articles by Demeter, S.

Practical Aspects of ¹⁸F-FDG PET When Receiving ¹⁸F-FDG from a Distant Supplier

¹ The Great-West Life PET/CT Imaging Centre, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; and ² Department of Radiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Andrew L. Goertzen, 751 John Buhler Research Centre, 715 McDermot Ave., Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3E 3P4. E-mail: goertzea{at}cc.umanitoba.ca

With PET becoming more widely used, there is an increase in the number of imaging centers being forced to rely on distant suppliers of ¹⁸F-FDG. Because of the large distances between major urban centers, this is particularly true for PET centers in Canada. Methods: Our PET center, located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, currently purchases ¹⁸F-FDG from a commercial vendor located more than 1,000 km from Winnipeg, necessitating transport by commercial airline cargo. This dependence on air transport and a distant supplier creates a situation in which our ¹⁸F-FDG supply is less reliable than it would be with onsite production. In this article, we offer insight into the obstacles we have encountered in imaging with a distant supplier of ¹⁸F-FDG and the solutions we have implemented to minimize the disruption to our patients and maximize the number of scans performed each year. Results: The development of contingency plans and protocols designed to suit our operating environment has allowed us to increase the number of patient scans obtained from 659 in year 1 to 993 in year 3, an increase of 51%, despite an increase in our actual number of scan days of only 24%. ¹⁸F-FDG injection timetables are presented for a variety of scenarios including normal delivery, low shipped activity, and delayed delivery. Conclusion: Through the careful establishment of contingency protocols and management of ¹⁸F-FDG shipments, patient throughput can be increased and disruptions minimized.

Key Words: positron emission tomography; organizational efficiency; ¹⁸F-FDG; radioisotope transportation; patient scheduling