Skip to Main Content

View Public Comments for Positron Emission Tomography (NaF-18) to Identify Bone Metastasis of Cancer

Use the browser below to select the Comment Period for which you would like to view the comments for the selected document. You can use the alphabetical links above the results table to jump to comments submitted by a commenter whose last name starts with that letter. Select the ‘Expand All Comments’ link to view all the full comments, and click the ‘Collapse All Comments’ link to view only the abstract for all comments. Select the ‘More’ link in the Comment to view the full text of the specific comment in a new window.
The first (earliest) set of comments are displayed by default in the Public Comment Results section. To view additional Comment Periods, use the radio button options and select the "Submit" button.
An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

      Select one period.



[33 Comments]
Page 1 of 2
FirstPrev12NextLast
First character of titleCommenterComment Information
B
Blaufox, Morton Title: Professor & University Chairman
Organization: Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Date: 06/18/2009
Comment:

I am the Chairman of the Department of Nuclear
Medicine at the Montefiore Medical Center and
the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. This
Department is located in the Bronx, New York,
and is an Imaging Center which services More opens in new window

B
Bocchino, Carmella Title: EVP, Clinical Affairs and Strategic Planning
Organization: America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)
Date: 07/02/2009
Comment:

July 2, 2009

Jeffrey Roche, MD, MPH
Lead Medical Officer, Coverage and Analysis Group
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Mail Stop C1-09-06
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland More opens in new window

B
Bridges, Robert Title: Medical Director
Organization: Alaska Open Imaging Center
Date: 06/08/2009
Comment:

I greatly appreciate the decision to reopen
consideration of NaF-18 PET bone imaging for bone
metastasis.

At Alaska Open Imaging Center in Anchorage,
Alaska, we have been using NaF-18 PET imaging for
over 5 years for More opens in new window

B
Bujenovic, L. Steven Title: Chief, Nuclear Medicine
Organization: Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center
Date: 06/09/2009
Comment:

A pity that this site does not readily accept
images, particularly when the currently CMS
reimbursed technology for bone scans Tc-99m
agents compared to F-18 is so visually apparent.
I will try to send an attachment. The case is More opens in new window

C
Carol, M.D., Mark Title: Chief Medical Officer
Organization: Alliance HealthCare Services
Date: 06/30/2009
Comment:

On behalf of Alliance HealthCare Services and its Alliance Imaging division, the largest provider of PET services in the nation, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on CMS’s reconsideration of Section 220.6 of its More opens in new window

C
chopra, Sushma Title: Supervisor PET scan dept.
Organization: The valley hospital
Date: 07/02/2009
Comment:

Utilizing Na F-18 for detecting bony
metastases will provide clinicians with
important information that would be beneficial
to patients undergoing cancer treatment.
There's sufficient data to prove superiority of
F-18 over Tc More opens in new window

C
Coel, Marc Date: 07/02/2009
Comment:

I used NaF for bone imaging when I was a resident
in 1970's at UCSD. With the further improvements
in scanners, software and display, the advantages
far out way any negatives, the greatest of which
is the increased time and More opens in new window

C
Cool, Stephen Title: Technical Director
Organization: Oregon Advanced Imaging
Date: 06/17/2009
Comment:

Our organization has been providing NaF PET Bone
Imaging procedures the past 3 years. NaF PET
Imaging has proven itself to be significantly
useful in patients suspected of having Cancer
spreading to the Bones. The image quality More opens in new window

D
D''''Andrea, Dr Mark Date: 07/02/2009
Comment:

Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing in support of CMS to support and pay
for PEt using NaF-18 to identyfy bone metastasis
in cancer patients. I have as an oncologist had
the difficult task of trying to clearly identyfy
patient who More opens in new window

D
Djang, David Title: Physician
Organization: Swedish Medical Center
Date: 07/03/2009
Comment:

I am the medical director of nuclear medicine atSwedish Medical Center, First Hill Campus, thelargest hospital in the state of Washington.

Sincere thanks to CMS for opening this commentperiod. NaF-18 PET bone scans demonstrate clearlysuperior More opens in new window

G
Giacomino, Chris Title: Senior Vice President
Organization: PET Imaging Institute of South Florida
Date: 06/07/2009
Comment:

While I am not a physician and cannot comment on a
particular patient, as a manager of PET Centers, I
feel that the journal articles and information
available regarding F-18 PET Bone Scans is fairly
clear that the quality and More opens in new window

G
GORDON, DANA Title: CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST NUCLEAR MEDICINE/PET/CT
Organization: EMERSON HOSPITAL
Date: 06/10/2009
Comment:

PATIENTS CAN NOT WAIT TILL 2010 FOR A
DISCISION.ALLOW PHYSCIANS TO DECIDE WHETHER A PET
BONE SCAN IS NEEDED NOW DURING THE REVIEW OF
EVIDENCE More opens in new window

H
Haseley, David Title: Medical Director
Organization: PET/CT Imaging at Swedish Cancer Institute
Date: 07/04/2009
Comment:

I am the medical director of PET/CT Imaging at the Swedish Cancer Institute (Seattle, Washington), the largest cancer center in the Pacific Northwest. We began performing NaF-18 PET bone scans in January of 2002. To date, we have performed over More opens in new window

H
Hopkins, Kevin Date: 06/09/2009
Comment:

In order to evaluate Tc99m MDP vs NaF-18 bone
scans , we would have to make some comparisons

cost of radiopharmaceuticals

25-30mCi Tc99m MDP 35-50.00$
10-12mCi NaF-18 180-220.00$

injection to scan delay
Tc99MDP More opens in new window

J
Jones, Bryn Title: PET/CT Technologist
Organization: Radiology Associates of Tarrant County
Date: 06/15/2009
Comment:

This is absolutely something that needs to be
addressed on a much broader scale. As a Nuclear
Medicine Technologist, I have performed many
General Tc-99m planar whole body bone scans.
Currently as a PET/CT Technologist I have had More opens in new window

K
Khandani, Amir H. Title: Associate Professor, Director, PET Services
Organization: University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Date: 07/01/2009
Comment:

There is a strong body of literature, among
others by Sapir, clearly documenting the higher
sensitivity and specificity of NaF PET scan
compared conventional bone scan. There is also an
ongoing clinical trial sponsored by AMI More opens in new window

K
Kitchen, Robin Date: 06/10/2009
Comment:

I think that utilizing F18 for detecting bony
metastases will provide clinicians with
important information that would be beneficial
to patients undergoing cancer treatment.The
shortage of technetium in the US could delay More opens in new window

L
Lavely, William C. Organization: Southern Molecular Imaging, LLC
Date: 07/04/2009
Comment:

June 30, 2009

Tamara Syrek Jensen, J.D.
Acting Director, Coverage and Analysis Group
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
7500 Security Blvd., Mail Stop C1-09-06
Baltimore, MD  More opens in new window

L
Leach, Lisa Date: 06/17/2009
Comment:

Wentworth-Douglass Hospital is the largest acute
care hospital in the Seacoast region of New
Hampshire and Southern Maine. Currently 47% of
our Nuclear Medicine procedures are 99mTc Bone
Scans. We provide PET/CT services, More opens in new window

L
Lethlean, Steven Title: PET/CT Technologist
Organization: Providence Regional Cancer Partneship
Date: 06/15/2009
Comment:

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to add comment to your decision regarding the reimbursement for Sodium F-18 PET imaging. Your consideration in this matter will potentially raise patient care significantly for our patients.

I have More opens in new window

M
Marano, Dr. Gary Organization: West Virginia University PET/CT
Date: 07/02/2009
Comment:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in response to your call for comments regarding the F18-PET Bone Imaging. I am currently a professor of Radiology, and More opens in new window

M
McCarthy, Timothy Title: President
Organization: Academy of Molecular Imaging
Date: 07/02/2009
Comment:

We are writing in response to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) request for comments on the reconsideration of Section 220.6 of the National Coverage Determination (NCD) on Positron Emission Tomography (PET), More opens in new window

N
Northcutt, David Title: Business Developement Specialist
Organization: DMS Health Technologies
Date: 06/08/2009
Comment:

I have reviewed some of the research comparing
NaF-18 to traditional bone scans in the oncologic
setting - especially Prostate cancer. The
research is clear that NaF-18 is the superior
scan. As it is more expensive, I would More opens in new window

O
Odom, William Date: 06/08/2009
Comment:

I feel that the evidence is sufficient for the
approval of NaF18 as a diagnostic bone agent.
PET is superior to traditional nuclear medicine
in detecting both blastic and lytic lesions.
The energy resolution and spatial More opens in new window

O
Osman, Hasan Organization: LCP
Date: 07/03/2009
Comment:

I am Dr Hasan Osman nuclear medicine physician with LCP Nuclear medicine which is a small private nuclear medicine department in a hospital based setting providing general nuclear medicine as well as PET imaging. We provide services for the More opens in new window

Page 1 of 2
FirstPrev12NextLast
4