OBJECTIVES: To compare the potential cost of long-acting treatments with lanreotide vs octreotide for GEP-NET using patient treatment characteristics from the PHARMO Record Linkage System (RLS) in the Netherlands. METHODS: A cost minimization model was used to compare lifetime costs of the SSAs. Data for patients receiving outpatient dispensing of long-acting SSA (2003–2010) were selected from PHARMO RLS. GEP-NET patients were identified by relevant hospital discharge diagnoses. Dosing and injection intervals were assessed during the first stable treatment period (i.e., the period of SSA dispensings with constant dosage and little variation in injection intervals). RESULTS: A total of 82 octreotide LAR users and 10 lanreotide Autogel users were identified. Stable treatment was observed in 54/82 (66%) octreotide and 8/10 (80%) lanreotide users; median (IQR) duration of the first stable phase was 3 (2-6) and 5 (4-6) months, respectively. Among stable users, most received medium doses (5/8 (63%) vs 35/54 (65%)). One (2%) octreotide user and none of the lanreotide users received low dose. High doses were received by 18/54 (33%) on octreotide vs 3/8 (38%) on lanreotide. Stratified by week, 9/54 (17%) octreotide users received injections every 3 weeks or more frequently, 36/54 (67%) every 4 weeks, 7/54 (13%) every 5 weeks and 2/54 (3%) every 6 weeks or less frequently; 7/8 (88%) lanreotide users received injections every 4 weeks and 1/54 (13%) every 6 weeks or less frequently. Mean injection intervals were 27±8 days for octreotide and 31±10 days for lanreotide. This resulted in an average GEP-NET patient cost 7% less with lanreotide than octreotide based on the cost minimization model. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests long-acting lanreotide use may reduce costs compared with long-acting octreotide. The driver of cost savings was the longer injection interval with lanreotide during stable treatment for GEP-NET. The nature of the disease implies low patient numbers.