RESUMEN
Prostate cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer in men. An imaging technique for its diagnosis is [68Ga]-prostate-specific membrane antigen ([68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11) positron emission tomography (PET). To address the increasing demand for [68Ga]-labeled peptides and reduce the cost of radiosynthesis, it is therefore necessary to optimize the elution process of [68Ge]Ge/[68Ga]Ga generators. This study aims to identify the most effective approach for optimizing radiosynthesis using double elution in parallel of two [68Ge]Ge/[68Ga]Ga generators. Two methods have been tested: one using prepurification, and the other using fractionated elution. Five synthesis sequences were conducted using each method. The mean labeling yields for double elution with prepurification were 45.8 ± 29.4 (mean ± standard deviation) and none met the required criteria. The mean labeling yields for the fractionated double elution were 97.5 ± 1.9 (mean ± standard deviation) meeting the criteria, significantly superior to the prepurification method (p = 0.012), and similar to those of simple elution. This study showed that fractionated double elution from [68Ge]Ge/[68Ga]Ga generators produced a significantly higher labeling yield than double elution with prepurification, resulting in a larger activity recovered via radiosynthesis, thereby allowing more diagnostic tests to be performed.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aims of the study are to make an inventory of fixtures of aseptic compounding structures, to compare, using real examples, the design and operating costs of controlled atmosphere area (CAA) with isolators and CAA with laminar flow biological safety cabinets (BSCs) in order to determine the most economical scheme in hospitals and to give a final facilities cost calculated for one workstation. METHODS: Forty-three hospitals were interviewed (21 French and 22 from four European countries) over seven months. Hospital pharmacists completed a form with 390 items. Hospitals are compared according to their workstation type: BSCII or BSCIII (group B) and isolator (group I), using Mann and Whitney's statistical test and Monte-Carlo modeling. RESULTS: Twenty-one hospitals responded (11 French and 10 from other European countries). All European compounding unit organizations are not significantly different. The study compared items such as infrastructure cost, equipment cost, staff cost, consumable cost, cleaning cost and control cost. A synthesis of all costs has been drafted to calculate an estimated preparation cost which seemed to be higher for group B than for group I when staff costs were included ($46 and $31, respectively, in study conditions). CONCLUSIONS: The different costs studied have revealed little significant difference between group B and I. The preparation cost in group B appears higher than in group I. This pilot study has resulted in the calculation of an estimated manufactured preparation cost but this work should be completed to help optimize resources and save money.