This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (5)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Radiologic Imaging  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Déjà Vu?

Ethan Balk, MD,MPH; Joseph Lau, MD

JAMA. 2001;285:936-937.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Few diagnostic technologies deployed during the past 3 decades have had as profound an impact on clinical medicine as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). While these technologies have improved case management, they have also become a billion-dollar industry that has had a major impact on rising health care costs. It is concerning, therefore, that these expensive technologies have been widely adopted before being adequately evaluated.^1-2 With the emergence of positron emission tomography (PET) from research laboratories into routine clinical use, physicians are faced once again with a new technology that promises to deliver more but that also costs more. At the current Medicare reimbursement rate of approximately $2000 per PET scan,³ unfettered use of this technology would easily add billions of dollars in spending to an already stressed health care financing system.

Positron emission tomography is a nuclear medicine imaging technique . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Division of Clinical Care Research, New England Medical Center, Boston, Mass.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Accuracy of Positron Emission Tomography for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Nodules and Mass Lesions: A Meta-analysis
Michael K. Gould, Courtney C. Maclean, Ware G. Kuschner, Chara E. Rydzak, and Douglas K. Owens
JAMA. 2001;285(7):914-924.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Role of Positron Emission Tomography in the Management of Stage I and II Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Viney et al.
JCO 2004;22:2357-2362.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

18F-FDG PET for the Diagnosis and Grading of Soft-Tissue Sarcoma: A Meta-Analysis
Ioannidis and Lau
JNM 2003;44:717-724.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Value of FDG Positron Emission Tomography in Conjunction with MR Imaging for Evaluating Therapy Response in Patients with Musculoskeletal Sarcomas
Bredella et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2002;179:1145-1150.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessing the Accuracy of PET for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Lesions
JWatch General 2001;2001:7-7.
FULL TEXT