National Coverage Analysis (NCA) View Public Comments

Positron Emission Tomography (FDG) for Brain, Cervical, Ovarian, Pancreatic, Small Cell Lung, and Testicular Cancers

Public Comments

Commenter Comment Information
Mutch, David Title: Chief, Division of Gynecologic Oncology
Organization: Washington University School of Medicine
Date: 12/03/2004
Comment:

Original Letter Sent to CMS

2 December 2004

The Honorable Mark McClellan
Administrator
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
G. Hubert Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201

Re: Draft Decision Memorandum for Positron Emission Tomography (FDG) for Brain, Cervical, Ovarian, Pancreatic, Small Cell Lung, and Testicular Cancers (CAG-00181N)

Dear Administrator

More

Dougherty, James Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers
Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute
City of Hope National Medical Center
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Fox Chase Cancer Center
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center
December 1, 2004
By Electronic

More

Manzitti, Vanessa Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) dated November 1, 2004. I am extremely concerned and disappointed that the proposed policy appears to effectively exclude PET studies in breast cancer patients from qualifying for coverage as part of research studies. I am hopeful that this interpretation is incorrect and the language is simply unclear.

Specifically,

1. The proposal to

More

Ortiz, Deborah Title: Chair, Senate Health and Human Services
Organization: California State Senate
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET).

I am pleased by the efforts of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Coverage and Analysis Group over the past several years in reviewing PET scans technology. PET scans are a breakthrough technology and have deserved and received considerable attention from CMS. As such, I am supportive of the draft National Coverage

More

Stovall, Ellen Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
Organization: National Coalition for Cancere Survivorship
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS), representing survivors of all forms of cancer, commends the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for its proposed plan for coverage of PET scans for diagnosis and staging of several cancers. NCCS supports the efforts of CMS to ensure coverage for PET scans while at the same time encouraging clinical trials and a registry that may yield valuable information about the effectiveness of PET scans in cancer diagnosis.

By

More

Kornfeld, Gary Title: Chair
Organization: North American Brain Tumor Coalition
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I am writing on behalf of the North American Brain Tumor Coalition (NABTC) in support of the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (FDG) for Brain, Cervical, Ovarian, Pancreatic, Small Cell Lung, and Testicular Cancer (CAG-00181N). The NABTC is a network of brain tumor organizations dedicated to improving the treatments for brain tumors and ensuring that brain tumor patients have access to quality health care. We commend the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

More

Comprehensive Cancer Center, . Organization: Desert Regional Medical Center
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

Quirk, James Title: Senior Vice President
Organization: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

On behalf of the Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers, an alliance of ten nationally recognized institutions focusing exclusively on the care of cancer patients, I am writing to comment on the recently issued Draft Decision Memo that would expand coverage of PET (FDG). The Cancer Centers, individually listed above, appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments.

DISCUSSION

We describe below a number of concerns about CMS's proposal for coverage of

More

Milne, MD, DMRD, FRCPS(C), Norah Organization: UCI Medical Center
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

St. Louis, M.D., Peter Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

Cancer Leadership Council, . Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

The undersigned organizations. representing cancer patients, providers, and researchers, are writing to express their support for the draft decision memo for coverage of PET scans as a diagnostic tool for several cancers. We applaud the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to cover PET scans in brain, ovarian, pancreatic, and small cell lung cancers while at the same time collecting data that may establish the benefits of the technology in these cancers.

We note

More

Van Geffen, Jack Title: Director, Nuclear Medicine
Organization: Anne Arundel Medical Center
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). I am very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

Ackerman Smith, Ginger Title: President
Organization: Ovarian Cancer National Alliance
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

Re: Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (FDG) for Brain Cervical, Ovarian, Pancreatic, Small Cell Lung, and Testicular Cancers (CAG-00181N)

Dear Dr. McClellan:

On behalf of thousands ovarian cancer survivors and their families, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance supports, with some reservation, the CMS decision to explore the benefits of Positron Emission Tomography.

CMS should be aware that many physicians across the country have successfully

More

Dillehay, Gary Title: Chairman, Coding and Reimbursement Committee
Organization: Society of Nuclear Medicine Advancing Molecular Imaging
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

The Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) representing more than 14,000 physicians, physicists, scientists, pharmacists and nuclear medicine technologists, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the November 1, 2004 draft decision memorandum for Positron Emission Tomography (FDG PET) for cervical cancer, and for expanded coverage of additional types of cancers through prospective clinical trials using a National Patient Data Registry (NPDR).

As stated previously the SNM supports expanded

More

Olivas, Joyce Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I am very supportive of expanded coverage on PET scans for cancer patients. Any and all diagnostic tools in the fight for life with cancer should be made available.

Belhocine, Tarik Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I strongly support the expanded coverage of new cancer indications for PETscans. Based on my experience in uterine cancers (especially cervical cancers), FDG PET has been shown to significantly impact the patients' management in nearly one third of patients. The large use of PETscan (in particular when combined with CTscan) will certainly add to the best managment of patients.

Viviano, Paul Title: Chairman of the Board, CEO
Organization: Alliance Imaging
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET) on behalf of Alliance Imaging, which is the largest provider of PET and PET/CT services in the United States. Alliance currently owns and operates 51 PET and PET/CT systems and, through utilization of our fixed centers and mobile fleet, provide service to over 250 facilities varying in size and service area from small rural communities to

More

Messer, Guy Title: Principal CFO
Organization: Trident Molecular Imaging
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). Trident Molecular Imaging, LLC and the three PET/CT Centers that we own and operate are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for

More

Dugger, Linda Title: Owner
Organization: RadiConsulting
Date: 12/01/2004
Comment:

Linda Dugger is writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications.

More

Korn, Allan Title: Chief Medical Officer
Organization: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association
Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

November 30, 2004

Sean Tunis, MD
Chief Medical Officer
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Via e-mailstunis@cms.hhs.gov

Re: Comments on Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (FDG) for Brain, Cervical, Ovarian, Pancreatic, Small Cell Lung, and Testicular Cancers (CAG-00181N)

Dear Dr. Tunis:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo referenced above on behalf of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

More

Van Nostrand, MD, Douglas Title: Director, Nuclear Medicine
Organization: Washington Hospital Center
Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in nuclear medicine strongly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when those studies are performed under research protocols. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data for using PET to improve patient outcomes.

However, I am disappointed that your proposed policy excludes breast cancer patients,

More

Smith, MD, William Title: Director, Breast Imaging
Organization: University of Kansas Medical Center
Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Voss, Katharine Title: Owners
Organization: Chanceland Farm
Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) dated November 1, 2004. I am extremely concerned and disappointed that the proposed policy appears to effectively exclude PET studies in breast cancer patients from qualifying for coverage as part of research studies. I am hopeful that this interpretation is incorrect and the language is simply unclear.

Specifically,

1. The proposal to cover PET is a good policy and

More

Griffith, William Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) dated November 1, 2004. I am extremely concerned and disappointed that the proposed policy appears to effectively exclude PET studies in breast cancer patients from qualifying for coverage as part of research studies. I am hopeful that this interpretation is incorrect and the language is simply unclear.

Specifically,

1. The proposal to cover PET is a good policy and

More

Strauss, Michael Title: CEO
Organization: Naviscan Pet Systems
Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004 (hereafter referred to as the "November 2004 Draft Decision Memo"). My colleagues and I at Naviscan PET Systems, Inc., a developer of high-resolution PET devices, believe that the Coverage and Analysis Group is to be commended for proposing such a novel policy initiative. It provides coverage for some PET studies while at the same time helps the medical

More

Steinberg, M.D., Robert Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

Arnaiz, Pat Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) dated November 1, 2004. I am extremely concerned and disappointed that the proposed policy appears to effectively exclude PET studies in breast cancer patients from qualifying for coverage as part of research studies. I am hopeful that this interpretation is incorrect and the language is simply unclear.

Specifically,

1. The proposal to cover PET is a good policy and

More

Rosato, Barbara Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) dated November 1, 2004. I am extremely concerned and disappointed that the proposed policy appears to effectively exclude PET studies in breast cancer patients from qualifying for coverage as part of research studies. I am hopeful that this interpretation is incorrect and the language is simply unclear.

Specifically,

1. The proposal to cover PET is a good policy and

More

Thierer, Mary Date: 11/30/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) dated November 1, 2004. I am extremely concerned and disappointed that the proposed policy appears to effectively exclude PET studies in breast cancer patients from qualifying for coverage as part of research studies. I am hopeful that this interpretation is incorrect and the language is simply unclear.

Specifically,

1. The proposal to cover PET is a good policy and

More

Eikman, Ed Organization: H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, USF
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

Although the proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients under research protocols is important, the draft appears to exempt breast cancer patients.

This appears to be a technial omission based on the peculiarities of current breast cancer coverage. This should be corrected, as the rationale for covering certain breast patients is just as valid as other cancers.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment, and will be happy to provide more detailed commentary if needed.

Timourian, Rita Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) dated November 1, 2004. I am extremely concerned and disappointed that the proposed policy appears to effectively exclude PET studies in breast cancer patients from qualifying for coverage as part of research studies. I am hopeful that this interpretation is incorrect and the language is simply unclear.

Specifically,

1. The proposal to cover PET is a good policy and

More

Parisky, MD, Yuri Title: Director, Breast Imaging Services
Organization: USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center/Hospital
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

I am the senior mammographer and Director of New Technologies for the Lee Breast Center at the USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles.

PET has allowed for tremendous advances in our battle against cancer. My colleagues and I are investigating PET in the management of both local and advanced disease. Specifically, we are investigating the

More

Kiss, Tina Organization: USC Health Sciences Campus, Norris Cancer Center
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data for

More

DeLoia, Jr., Paul Title: CEO
Organization: Tristan Associates
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Tafra, MD, Lorraine Title: Director, The Breast Cancer
Organization: Anne Arundel Medical Center Breast Center
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Makariou, MD, Erini Title: Assistant Professor of Radiology
Organization: Georgetown University Hospital
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Mascatello, MD, Vincent Title: President
Organization: P.E.T. of Reston, L.P.
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Stearman, MD, Mandell Title: Consultant/Instructor of Radiology
Organization: Mayo Clinic
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

DePeri, MD, Elizabeth Title: Consultant
Organization: Mayo Clinic
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

McComb, MD, Barbara Title: Radiology Consultant
Organization: Mayo Clinic
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

McDonough, MD, Michelle Title: Senior Associate Consultant
Organization: Mayo Clinic
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Cernigliaro, MD, Joseph Title: Consultant/Instructor of Radiology
Organization: Mayo Clinic
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Saunders, R.N., Maria Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Gulec, MD, Seza Title: Director of Molecular Imaging and PET Program
Organization: Goshen Center for Cancer Care
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Levy, Mitchell Organization: The Breast Cancer, Inc.
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Dubbe, Gina Title: Managing Director
Organization: Walker Investment Fund II SBIC, LP
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Freimanis, MD, Rita Organization: Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Staab, MD, Edward Title: Professor of Radiology
Organization: Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Khalkhali, M.D., Iraj Title: Professor of Radiological Sciences
Organization: UCLA School of Medicine
Date: 11/29/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Masek, M.D., Theodore Date: 11/28/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

Taylor, MD, Murray Organization: Rancho Mirage Family Medical Group
Date: 11/28/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

Matsumoto, M.D., Julie Date: 11/26/2004
Comment:

I am very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications.

In oncology, PET is the most accurate non-invasive way to show whether or not a tumor is malignant or benign. PET reveals metastatic disease other imaging

More

Stamerro, Julia Date: 11/24/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) dated November 1, 2004. I am extremely concerned and disappointed that the proposed policy appears to effectively exclude PET studies in breast cancer patients from qualifying for coverage as part of research studies. I am hopeful that this interpretation is incorrect and the language is simply unclear.

Specifically,

1. The proposal to cover PET is a good policy

More

Grace, Edward Title: Credentialing Manager
Organization: Integral Nuclear Associates
Date: 11/24/2004
Comment:

On behalf of Integral Nuclear Associates, I am writing to comment on the November 1, 2004 draft national coverage decision, on the expansion of coverage for Positron Emission Tomography (PET). We strongly support the draft NCD coverage policy that would expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer

More

McCartney, William Title: Chief, Nuclear Medicine Section
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: 11/24/2004
Comment:

Dear Administrator McClellan:

During the past two years, the University of North Carolina Hospitals has studied patients with PET (and, more recently PET/CT) for all of the CMS-approved indications for cancer and many of our patients have benefitted greatly in terms of improved management for their cancers. We have had less experience with cervical, ovarian and pancreatic cancer due to lack of adequate insurance; however, it is our impression that PET in these conditions similarly offered

More

McCartney, William Title: Chief, Nuclear Medicine Section
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: 11/24/2004
Comment:

Dear Administrator McClellan:

During the past two years, we have been performing PET studies and, more recently, PET/CT studies at the University of North Carolina for all of the CMS-approved indications and many of our patients have greatly benefitted from PET-induced management changes in their cancer therapy. We have had more limited experience with cervical & ovarian cancer, due to lack of adequate insurance coverage; however, PET seemed to offer similar critical information for these

More

castronuovo, joseph Title: chief nuclear medicine
Organization: North Shore University Hospital at Glen Cove
Date: 11/24/2004
Comment:

As a physician providing PET imaging for cancer patients in my community, I have witnessed the benefits that patients derive from the earlier and better informed management and therapeutic decisions based on the information provided by PET scans. I would not deny a family member with cancer the advantage provided by this procedure and have great difficulty denying this service to others because of lack of adequate coverage.

Harris, Nancy Title: Administrator
Organization: St. Joseph Cancer Institute
Date: 11/24/2004
Comment:

I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET), dated November 1, 2004.

My colleagues and I in the breast care, radiology and nuclear medicine communities wholeheartedly support your proposal to cover PET studies in cancer patients when performed under research protocols. PET is a valuable and proven imaging modality that provides extraordinary benefit for patients. Your new policy will help us further develop and refine the data

More

Stout, David Title: Director, Crump Imaging Facility
Organization: UCLA Crump Institute for Molecular Imaging
Date: 11/23/2004
Comment:

PET imaging provides unique information related to the metabolism of compounds such as FDG in the body. Anyone suffering from cancer, or worried about whether something unwanted is occurring in their bodies, would benefit from knowing what is happening within their bodies. The wonderfull thing about this imaging technique is that in the same diagnostic procedure, one learns about not just where physicians suspect there may be problems, but one sees what is going on throughout the whole

More

Fraktin, Melvin Title: Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology
Organization: Virginia Commonwealth University Health System
Date: 11/23/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET}. I am very Supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

Ihde, MD, Janet Organization: Comprehensive Cancer Center
Date: 11/23/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

Jodion, M.D., V. Douglas Organization: American Board of Family Practice
Date: 11/23/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally, this

More

Tobiasen, Jenifer Date: 11/23/2004
Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) dated November 1, 2004. I am extremely concerned and disappointed that the proposed policy appears to effectively exclude PET studies in breast cancer patients from qualifying for coverage as part of research studies. I am hopeful that this interpretation is incorrect and the language is simply unclear.

Specifically,
  1. The proposal to cover PET is a good policy and

    More

Coleman, M.D., R. Edward Title: President
Organization: Academy of Molecular Imaging
Date: 11/22/2004
Comment:

Dear Administrator McClellan:

Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on the draft decision memo dated November 1, 2004, pertaining to expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET) for cancer care. The AMI, an association of physicians, providers and researchers using nuclear medicine to advance treatment of patients with cancer, appreciates the efforts of the CMS over the past several years in reviewing the breakthrough PET technology as it applies to this

More

Meyerson, Monroe Title: Chairman
Organization: Radiology Corporation of America
Date: 11/22/2004
Comment:

Dear Dr. McClellan:

On behalf of Radiology Corporation of America, I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for

More

EHRET, EILEEN Title: Administrative Technologist
Organization: e+ PET Imaging of The Woodlands
Date: 11/20/2004
Comment:

As a PET technologist for the past 4 years, I have seen where PET has greatly helped patients diagnosed with brain, cervical, ovarian, pancreatic, small cell lung cancer, and testicular cancers. It has often changed the course of treatment, saved patient from unnecessary surgery, discovered areas of metastases that were not picked up by any other diagnositic modality, and confirmed whether the patient was responding to treatment. Please, please consider coverage for patients with these

More

FESTEKJIAN, ANAHID Title: Receptionist
Organization: Southern California PET institute
Date: 11/19/2004
Comment:

I support expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers

Alexander, Tami Title: Director of Operations
Organization: HealthWest Partners, Inc.
Date: 11/19/2004
Comment:

I am very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers.

Schuster, David Title: Medical Director, Center for PET
Organization: Emory University
Date: 11/19/2004
Comment:

I am writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). We are very supportive of the draft NCD coverage policy that would both expand coverage of PET scans for all remaining non-covered cancers and collect more patient management data on the use of PET with these cancers. This policy would increase access for Medicare beneficiaries to PET scans for all cancer indications. Additionally,

More

Abello, Richard R. Date: 11/19/2004
Comment:

I would like to support expandanded Medicare coverage for the less common tumors named above.

Milne, Norah Title: Chief, Division of Nuclear Medicine
Organization: UC Irvine Medical Center
Date: 11/19/2004
Comment:

PET scans are acknowledged to have increased the accuracy of diagnosis of cancer in already approved tumors. To continue the process of "one at a time" approval is unnecessarily lengthy, and may deny a potentially lifesaving test to a patient with a non-approved cancer. Approval for all cancers would be more efficient, and would potentially save lives through more effective treatment.

Coleman, MD, R. Edward Organization: Academy of Molecular Imaging
Date: 11/19/2004
Comment:

The Academy of Molecular Imaging (AMI) is writing to comment on the draft national coverage decision posted on November 1, 2004 on the expanded coverage of positron emission tomography (PET). The AMI is comprised of physicians, providers and researchers focusing on nuclear medicine and the use of PET to advance the treatment and management of patients with cancer. The AMI appreciates the efforts of the CMS’ Coverage and Analysis Group over the past several years in reviewing PET scans

More

Tweedle, Michael Title: President
Organization: Bracco Research USA Inc; Board member of SNIDD
Date: 11/19/2004
Comment:

These diagnostic tests save lives every day. It is imperitive that they be covered by any insurance that claims to be effective.

McDonald, James Date: 11/18/2004
Comment:

The database will allow the assembly of enough imformation to permit a scientifically valid decision on the vital question of broad coverage.

Novich, Ira Title: President
Organization: New Rochelle Radiology
Date: 11/17/2004
Comment:

As a physician interpreting PET/CT scans for more than 1 and 1/2 years I have had the opportunity to image several patients with pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, and leiyomyosarcoma of the uterus. IN some cases only the PET scan identified the primary and in all cases was significantly more accurate in assesing the extent of disease. I hyave also had some experience with small cell lung carcinoma. PET was also reliable in assesing the extent of disease in this patient. I feel strongly

More

Lutzker, Letty Title: Chief, Nuclear Medicine
Organization: Saint Barnabas Medical Center
Date: 11/16/2004
Comment:

It is absurd that PET must be "approved" cancer by cancer, but other modalities such as CT and MRI can be used for imaging of any tumor even where sensitivity is limited and specificity is poor. FDG-PET is a modality for detection of metabolically active processes, predominantly neoplastic but also in some cases inflammatory and should be recognized as such, to be utilized at physicians' discretion for the benefit of their patients.

Yours truly,

Letty G. Lutzker, M.D.

Soudry, M.D., Gabriel Title: Medical Director, Nuclear Medicine and PET
Organization: Franklin Square Hospital
Date: 11/16/2004
Comment:

I receive calls on a weekly basis from clinicians wanting to discuss whether a PET scan would be appropriate or not to further investigate a patient condition. I often find myself having to say that the PET scan is likely to provide critical information that would positively impact on patient management. However, this particular cancer/indication is not covered by Medicare at this time, therefore the patient will not have access to this test. This is an unfortunate situation both for the

More

Rienzo, Robert Date: 11/16/2004
Comment:

The scientific literature is clear about the benefits of utilizing PET and PET/CT for the diagnosis, staging, and follow-up of patients with the cancers now being considered for coverage by CMS. In the long run PET and PET/CT may be cost effective in the above mentioned cancers by preventing futile surgery and by changing clinical management. I believe that PET and PET/CT are crutial for patients with these malignancies and strongly recommend that CMS approve reimbursement for same

Moorhead, M.D., Francis Title: Director
Organization: Methodist Hospital Radiation Oncology Center
Date: 11/16/2004
Comment:

Patients would benefit from PET scans for these conditions. In some cases radiation therapy or surgery would be avoided in cases where metastases, not detectable by other methods, were discovered by PET scan.

Sonnemaker, Robert Date: 11/16/2004
Comment:

As a physician practicing nuclear medicine, I see many patients who would be helped in their medical management with the expansion of clinical indications under current consideration.

Hecker, Julie Date: 11/16/2004
Comment:

PET and PET/CT in the Evaluation of Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies

To Whom It May Concern:
At UPMC hospitals in general and Magee-Womens Hospital specifically, we believe that PET scanning is a powerful tool for the staging and monitoring of treatment for both cervical cancer and ovarian cancer. Currently we are evaluating the added benefit of PET/CT. Our preliminary data is very compelling to support the notion that PET/CT offers a significantly greater benefit than CT or

More

Friedman, Samuel Title: Medical Director of Nuclear Medicine & PET Imaging
Organization: Pitts Radiology
Date: 11/16/2004
Comment:

I am a Nuclear Radiologist practicing in Columbia, South Carolina. Our hospital was the first in our state to offer positron imaging, first with coincidence imaging, and then with a dedicated PET scanner. The information provided has proven to be invaluable to our patients and their care.

I would strongly urge the approval of reimbursement for the additional cancers listed above. Our literature shows that PET scanning can have similar efficacy with these entities as well as the

More

Karvelis, Kastytis Title: Director, Division of Nuclear Medicine
Organization: Henry Ford Health System
Date: 11/16/2004
Comment:

As a practicing Nuclear Medicine physician, I feel it is imperative to expand PET to the tumors currently being considered by CMS. My opinion is certainly personal, but more importantly, the vast growing body of scientific literature leaves little doubt the that the addition of true physiologic information via PET to the anatomic data provided by scans such as CT scans is absolutely invaluable in these tumors. Many, many patients will benefit from PET information about their tumors

More

Goss, Bryan Title: RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Organization: NEW MEXICO CANCER CENTER
Date: 11/15/2004
Comment:

PET TECHNOLOGY WILL HELP CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH CERVICAL CANCER AND IDENTIFY METASTATIC DISEASE

Lutrin, Calvin Title: Medical Director, Nuclear Medicine
Organization: Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center
Date: 11/15/2004
Comment:

This piecemeal process of granting reimbursement for one or two forms of cancer at a time is wasteful of resources (e.g. frequent and often useless CT and MRI scans) and denies patients access to an imaging modality which has great power to determine the appropriate treatment for individual patients. CMS should relax restrictions so that any malignancy which concentrates F18 deoxyglucose should be reimbursable. Doctors will use the modality if it proves beneficial to patients and will

More

boardman, cecelia Title: Assistant Professor
Organization: VCUHS
Date: 11/04/2004
Comment:

I strongly support this document. As a gynecologic oncologist at the Massey Cancer Center, VCUHS, I treat many cervical and ovarian cancer patients. I have found PEt scanning invaluable in the management of these patients. It helps direct therapy.