Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:44:27.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clinical Pet Scanning: A “Short-lived” Orphan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

R. Edward Coleman
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center
William H. Briner
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center
Barry A. Siegel
Affiliation:
Washington University School of Medicine

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) is a method of nuclear medicine imaging that uses short-lived radiopharmaceuticals to detect and quantify the metabolic abnormalities of disease processes. PET initially was developed in a research environment as a research tool; data from these research studies resulted in the gradual recognition that PET studies would be useful for various routine clinical applications. The diffusion of PET into clinical practice has been slow in comparison with other new imaging methods (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging). This slow diffusion is attributable to several factors, including the complexity and high cost of PET, the uncertain role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in regulating the radiopharmaceuticals that are produced and used on-site for PET studies, and the apparent slow pace at which the Health Care Financing Administration and other third-party payers are developing policies for reimbursing for PET.

Type
Special Section: Orphan Technologies
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.ACNP/SNM Task Force on Clinical PET. Positron emission tomography: Clinical status in the United States in 1987. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 1988, 29, 1136–43.Google Scholar
2.Berk, R. N., & Siegelman, S. S.The value of early publications on efficacy of MR imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1988, 151, 1240–41.Google Scholar
3.Bonow, R. O., Berman, D. S., Gibbons, R. J., et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography. A report for health professionals from the Committee on Advanced Cardiac Imaging and Technology of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association. Circulation, 1991, 84, 447–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Chalmers, T. C.PET scans and technology assessment (editorial). Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 260, 2713–15.Google Scholar
5.Coleman, R. E.Positron tomography: The case for reimbursement. Applied Radiology, 1989, 18, 3948.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Council on Scientific Affairs Report of the Positron Emission Tomography Panel. Application of positron emission tomography in the heart. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 2438–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Council on Scientific Affairs. Report of the Positron Emission Tomography Panel. Cyclotrons and radiopharmaceuticals in positron emission tomography. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 1854–60.Google Scholar
8.Council on Scientific Affairs. Report of the Positron Emission Tomography Panel. Instrumentation in positron emission tomography. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 1531–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Council on Scientific Affairs. Report of the Positron Emission Tomography Panel. Positron emission tomography in oncology. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 2126–31.Google Scholar
10.Strauss, L. G., & Conti, P. S.The applications of PET in clinical oncology. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 1991, 32, 623–48.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Assessment: positron emission tomography. Neurology, 1991, 41, 163–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.The Workshop Panel. Advances in clinical imaging using positron emission tomography. National Cancer Institute Workshop Statement. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1990,150, 735–39.Google Scholar