[ RadSafe ] SPECT/CT survey

[John Jacobus]

PET and PET/CT growth is not based on non-nuclear
radioisotopes.  Rather, from compensation from
Medicare.  As soon as the Federal government approved
compensation for PET in cancer imaging and staging, it
opened up the gates for PET facilities.  PET/CT is the
latest iteration of the imaging program.  By the way,
the requirment was that only PET scanners and not
SPECT scanners would be receive reimbursement.  GE and
Siemens stock went up.

At $400 a dose, (F-18)-FDG is expensive, and is really
limited in the clinical setting to cancer staging.  Of
course, there is a lot of PET research going on, but I
see little PET use in clinical settings.  Cyclotrons
are expense.  The advantage of PET is (1) the high
specificity for FDG for cancer growths, and (2) the
ability to identify small lesions over nuclear
medicine imaging.

http://www.imaginis.com/nuclear-medicine/nuc_pet.asp
(Scans like cardiac and brain mentioned in this site
are not ones you typically see in the clinical
setting.)

No, reactor generated radionuclides are not going out
of style.  Nuclear medicine scans are still important
in the diagnosis of heart disease, lung emboli, gall
bladder, kidney diseases, etc. It is a mature
technology that is not going away anytime soon.  If
anything, the MRI may pose a challenge to both PET and
nuclear medicine, but each modality has its advantages
and limitations.

Nuclear medicine:
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/content/gen_nuclear_med.htm#Limits
http://www.nuclearonline.org/PIbygeneric2.htm
http://www.imaginis.com/nuclear-medicine/nuc_clinical.asp

PET:
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/content/petomography.htm#Limits
  
--- Jaro <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca> wrote:

> That's very interesting John.
> Somehow, I was under the impression that there were
> many more PET machines
> in service, than SPECT --- reason being that PETs
> don't need nuke reactors
> for support, and as we all know, the latter are
> rapidly going out of style
> (or out of "political correctness").
> Would you please explain, if possible, why your
> establishment's nuke
> medicine dep't seems to be bucking the trend ?
> ....or is the appearance of
> such a trend simply fictitious ?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
>  Jaro
> 
>  Jaro Franta, P.Eng.
> Tel.: (514) 875-3444
> Montréal, Québec
> frantaj at aecl.ca
> web master, CNS Québec branch:
> http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/quebec.html
> 
> <><><><><><><><><><><>
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf
> Of John Jacobus
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 12:21 PM
> To: molex77 at yahoo.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] SPECT/CT survey
> 
> 
> We currently have a single PET/CT scanner, and four
> SPECT cameras.  All of our SPECT images are fused to
> separate CT scanners.
> <SNIP>
> 
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release
> Date: 2/10/2005
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing
> list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> 
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and
> other settings visit: 
> http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> 


=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"Baltimore is actually a very safe city if you are not involved in the drug trade."
DR. PETER BEILENSON, the city's health commissioner.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250