Molecular Imaging Insight - September 2007 - (Page 2) from the editor Defining Success ET/CT has come a long way since Time magazine awarded the scanner one of its Medical Inventions of the Year award in December 2000. Published literature since 1996 has established strong evidence for the advantages of PET/CT over PET and CT alone for characterizing lesions as malignant or benign, and for staging, restaging and therapy monitoring of cancer. In addition, emerging applications include imaging of cardiovascular diseases and infection. The evidence is strong and the argument quite compelling for using the technologies where warranted. That’s the premise of this month’s cover story by Prof. Rodney Hicks of the University of Melbourne and the Centre for Molecular Imaging and Translational Medicine, The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre—“How Can We Afford NOT to Use FDG-PET?” A panel of seven clinical and public policy experts convened in Washington, D.C., in June during the time of the Society of Nuclear Medicine annual meeting present similar views about the imperative need to use PET and PET/ CT, as well as the economic aspects of molecular imaging. Beginning on page 12, they also share their thoughts on personalized medicine, molecular imaging technologies, imaging biomarkers and the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA). The most compelling clinical argument for the clinical Johannes Czernin, MD use of PET/CT comes from clinical research studies. We have compiled a limited Clinical Study Digest that should point the reader’s attention to recent publications on PET/CT imaging in leading journals. The emerging role of Cardiac PET/CT imaging is discussed by Randy Patterson, MD, director of Cardiovascular Imaging at Emory Crawford Long Hospital (“64-Slice Cardiac PET/CT: Slice Count Does Matter”). A clinical team at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center is collaborating in developing whole-body SPECT/CT with the hope of increasing specificity. And work has just begun on integrated MR/PET imaging, too. Overall, this volume presents discussions on current applications and the future potential of clinical molecular imaging. Editorial Advisory Board Michael J. Fulham, MD Director, PET Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and Clinical Associate Professor, University of Sydney, Australia Rodney J. Hicks, MD, FRACP Professor, Department of Medicine, the University of Melbourne, Director, Centre for Molecular Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia Stig A. Larsson, PhD Profressor, and Head of Department of Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Homer Macapinlac, MD Chair of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston Donald Neumann, MD, PhD Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio Randolph Patterson, MD Director, Cardiovascular Imaging, Emory Crawford Long Hospital and Professor of Medicine, The Emory Clinic, Atlanta, Georgia Markus Schweiger, MD Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany Nagara Tamaki, MD, PhD Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan David W. Townsend, PhD Professor of Medicine and Radiology, and Director of the Cancer Imaging and Tracer Development Program, The University of Tennessee School of Medicine, Knoxville P Johannes Czernin, MD Professor, Molecular & Medical Pharmacology Director, Nuclear Medicine Clinic, Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, Calif. Molecular Imaging Insight September 2007
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.