Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Feds won't cover PET scans during isotope crisis
A+ A- Text Size

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: August 17, 2009

Each week day throughout the United States, health centers typically perform some 7,500 or more bone scans using a nuclear isotope, technetium-99m, to search for areas of rapid bone growth, which might signal cancer. Since May, however, the low and erratic availability of this isotope's feedstock — molybdenum-99 — has put access to these tests in jeopardy. The good news: There's an alternate imaging test available that's as good as the one that relies on Tc-99m.

The not-so-good news: Your doctor or medical center may not offer it.

The Food and Drug Administration recently posted a Q&A on its website offering suggestions about how health-care providers can cope during the current technetium shortage. One recommendation: Where bone lesions are suspected, physicians should consider substituting sodium-fluoride positron emission tomography, also known as NaF-18 PET imaging.

The American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine, Academy of Molecular Imaging, American College of Nuclear Physicians and American Society for Radiation Oncology all concur with FDA’s recommendation. But one hiccup (and it's a big one): Medicare won’t pay for PET bone imaging. And don't count on insurance companies to bail us out, because they often take their guidance from Medicare policy on which procedures to cover and which to exclude. All of which could make the idea of substituting PET bone scans for Tc-99m-based tests a nonstarter for any but the very rich. 

In a July 2 letter to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, better known as CMS, the five medical societies petitioned the agency to alter its PET-exclusion policy, if only for periods of critical moly-99 shortages — like now.

“We strongly believe that the evidence indicates that NaF-18 PET is equal or superior to the current covered technology in identifying bone metastasis of cancer, and encourage CMS to cover NaF-18 PET for this purpose without restriction.” The letter also pointed out that “No safety issues have been reported with NaF-18, and FDA conducted a formal review of PET drugs in 2000 that specifically deemed NaF-18 to be safe and effective.” 

The current Tc-99m shortage only “lends urgency to this reconsideration,” the letter said. It concluded with five pages synopsizing studies that indicated this PET technology might even be superior to Tc-99m bone imaging.

I contacted CMS to confirm it doesn’t cover PET bone scans and has no immediate plans to change its policy. Late Friday, Donald McLeod of CMS emailed me to say that at the prompting of the five medical societies, CMS is now reevaluating its exclusion of coverage for PET bone scans. But, he pointed out, “By Medicare law, CMS takes between 9 to 12 months to review the literature surrounding an issue, make a ‘reasonable and necessary’ coverage decision, issue a proposed decision, allow 30 days of public comment on the decision, and then issue a final coverage decision.”

Bottom line, he said: No final decision should be expected before “March 2010.” Which means, I guess, that we had all better “elect” to not get bone cancer while either of the world's two leading moly-99-producing reactors are shut down. That's until early next year for the Canadian reactor outside Chalk River, Ontario. And then another four to six months after that as the Dutch reactor in Petten undergoes repairs for corrosion, beginning some time next February.

Currently, the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy is coordinating an interagency panel on dealing with the moly-99 crisis. Jean Cottam, OSTP's assistant director for physical sciences and engineering observes that "we have FDA and HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] at the table during these discussions."

She notes that CMS can waive its normal timetable and expedite reviews if FDA declares there's a medical emergency warranting it. "A lot of health care providers have pushed for this," she says. "And we have talked to the FDA about it."

But for now, both FDA and OSTP's interagency group are encouraging doctors to triage their supplies of Tc-99m, reserving them for procedures that have no good — or available — alternatives.

Like bone scans for cancer. Indeed, notes Jeffrey Norenberg, director of radiopharmaceutical sciences at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, "The average hospital is ill-equipped to convert to sodium-fluoride bone scans." At best, "nationwide we're probably looking at being able to convert only perhaps 10 percent of those bone scans to sodium fluoride," he estimates.

What the nation really needs, he, Cottam and others argue, is reducing our reliance on the five very geriatric foreign reactors that are currently making 95 percent of the world's moly-99. After years of the medical community petitioning for new sources, moves are finally afoot to develop them — and from domestic facilities. Spearheading this policy shift: the Obama White House.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

FDA. 2009. Questions and Answers: Technetium-99m Radiopharmaceutical Product Shortage. [Go to]

Comments (3)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • This is a small example why we may not need a nationalized health care system, and the FDA hinders every bit as much as it helps. Granted, it would be incredible if we were able to pay for health insurance for all citizens, but given the sheer size of the US physically and the size of the population, it presents a logistical nightmare.
    If there is a comparable, or even superior method of completing a PET scan that is cheaper than the traditional method, and poses the same or less risk, than that's what should be done, or even should become the industry standard. Once again, it becomes evident that the private market is far more able to innovate and reduce costs and practice efficiency than a large government bureaucracy.
    Annan Amos Annan Amos
    Aug. 28, 2009 at 7:06pm
  • Annan Amos is correct. By the time the gov gets around to building new sources the market will have already repaired the damage and moved on. That is, unless some other gov interference stops it. Meanwhile, nobody blames Medicare and the FDA etc but instead blames their doc, their hospital, their insurance company. The only reasonable reform of Medicare is repeal of the whole thing. Same for the FDA. The real kick is that the gov (forget Obama WhiteHouse, they are ALL the same) wants our votes to fix the problems they created with another law and a further set of problems.
    Markets work. Gov regulation does not.
    Charles Johnsen Charles Johnsen
    Sep. 17, 2009 at 7:57am
  • damar sözler

    alan sorgulama

    emek elektrik

    ilan ver ilan ekle Reklam

    havuz cam mozaik

    cam mozaik

    Aşk ve Sevgi

    Yabancı Biyografiler

    msn nickleri

    bebek

    inşaat

    site ekle

    web hosting

    canlı radyo dinle

    oto cam

    kuruyemiş

    sohbet

    istoç

    turizm

    sıva ustası

    digiturk

    oto center

    irc komutları

    video

    bilgisayar

    sohbet

    radyo dinle

    görüntülü mirc indir

    cam mozaik

    kuruyemiş

    pendik satılık daire

    oto kiralama

    web tasarım

    dış cephe

    mozaik

    kameralar

    reklam

    ısı yalıtım

    VPS

    sorunlar

    ps2 hileleri

    oyun hileleri

    metin2 hileleri

    farmville hileleri

    knight online hileleri

    sanalika hileleri

    counter strike hileleri

    milli piyango sonuçları

    şans topu sonuçları

    on numara sonuçları

    Super Loto sonuçları

    Sayısal Loto sonuçları

    Ehliyet Sınav sonuçları

    doğum günü mesajları

    Pendik Kurtköy de Satılık Daireler

    kombi servisleri
    Sahhosting vps Sahhosting vps
    Mar. 2, 2010 at 8:17pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us