Lantheus Medical Imaging

Quote
























Sorry, there will be no difference to make up. I believe any initial exuberance for this issue has come and gone. Watch this issue trickle down in price until the company announces a reverse stock split. By this time it will be to late; game over. This "Lame Duck" is not able to ride the enthusiasm investors are showing for hot IPO's with 1) products, what is the expiration of LNTH's main offering? Isn't it due to come off patent soon? And we all know what happens to products that come off patent, 2) earnings and 3) a viable pipe line - not a "smoke and mirrors" offering of a cardiac PET agent...what is the installed base of cardiac PET cameras???
 






Anonymous said:
Sorry, there will be no difference to make up. I believe any initial exuberance for this issue has come and gone. Watch this issue trickle down in price until the company announces a reverse stock split. By this time it will be to late; game over. This "Lame Duck" is not able to ride the enthusiasm investors are showing for hot IPO's with 1) products, what is the expiration of LNTH's main offering? Isn't it due to come off patent soon? And we all know what happens to products that come off patent, 2) earnings and 3) a viable pipe line - not a "smoke and mirrors" offering of a cardiac PET agent...what is the installed base of cardiac PET cameras???
Click to expand...

what is the installed base of cardiac PET cameras? And what about reimbursement? Who is going to pay for a product they will not get reimbursement on?
 






Rb-82 Dilemma

Rb-82 PET is not often used by cardiac facilities because there is a much larger installed base of SPECT cameras, and SPECT isotopes have a long history of effective use for coronary disease, deKemp told AuntMinnie.com.

PET cameras have been used mainly for oncology imaging with FDG; fewer systems are dedicated to cardiac imaging. Ottawa Heart Institute, for example, has two SPECT scanners for perfusion imaging with Tc-99m and Tl-201 and one PET scanner for Rb-82 imaging. In terms of total volume, about one-third of the facility's 6,000 annual studies are Rb-82 PET and two-thirds are Tc-99m SPECT.

The impetus for the trial began in 2009, when the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) sent out a call to investigators to identify alternative isotopes for myocardial perfusion imaging due to the severe shortage of Tc-99m.
 






Pros and Cons

The main positives of SPECT are that it’s much more available and widely used and much cheaper than PET. A SPECT gamma camera costs $400,000 to $600,000, while a PET-CT scanner can cost around $2 million. While PET is more expensive in terms of purchasing equipment, SPECT radio tracers also have half-lives of up to six hours, allowing a lot of imaging time, while PET tracers only have a half-life of about 75 seconds. SPECT radio tracers are also much cheaper and more abundant than PET tracers, Dr. Jain said.

“SPECT is the most well-established modality and is the most widely used,” said Dr. Jain, noting SPECT has been is common use since the early 1990s. “SPECT is not going to go away.”
In 2007, there were 15.9 million SPECT procedures performed, which included 8.3 million nuclear cardiology procedures. In comparison, there were a total of about 1.6 million PET procedures performed in 2007.

However, SPECT has issues, including long scan times and low-resolution images prone to artifacts and attenuation. Some artifacts can easily be misidentified as perfusion defects. SPECT also does not provide a quantifiable estimate of the blood flow, whereas PET does, experts say.

SPECT issues have been partially resolved by technological progress, cutting scan times with triple-headed cameras, improved cameras, computer-aided image enhancement and visual tracking systems to monitor and compensate for patient movement during long scans.

“PET is better in many respects,” Dr. Faulhaber said. “With PET you have less artifacts.”

He said this is especially important when imaging larger patients, because the more tissue gamma rays pass through, it causes attenuation issues.

Other positives of PET are higher spatial resolution and the capability to perform quantitative measurements at the peak of stress and speed. Dr. Faulhaber said PET scan times of 30-40 minutes mean more patients can be processed in a day, instead of the two or more hours it takes for a SPECT scan.
Dr. Jain said PET is not rapidly replacing SPECT because it does have some drawbacks.

“PET is better, but not so much better than SPECT,” Dr. Jain said. “If a new technology is decidedly better it will replace the old technology quickly.”

Dr. Faulhaber agreed, saying PET is only “a little bit better” than SPECT imaging.
 






Anonymous said:
Rb-82 Dilemma

Rb-82 PET is not often used by cardiac facilities because there is a much larger installed base of SPECT cameras, and SPECT isotopes have a long history of effective use for coronary disease, deKemp told AuntMinnie.com.

PET cameras have been used mainly for oncology imaging with FDG; fewer systems are dedicated to cardiac imaging. Ottawa Heart Institute, for example, has two SPECT scanners for perfusion imaging with Tc-99m and Tl-201 and one PET scanner for Rb-82 imaging. In terms of total volume, about one-third of the facility's 6,000 annual studies are Rb-82 PET and two-thirds are Tc-99m SPECT.

The impetus for the trial began in 2009, when the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) sent out a call to investigators to identify alternative isotopes for myocardial perfusion imaging due to the severe shortage of Tc-99m.
Click to expand...

Lantheus is a dog, no doubt. But you've got some bad information there.

Development of flurpiridaz dates all the way back to 2004.

Availability of cameras doesn't drive development of agents, its the other way around, at least in the beginning.

But Lantheus does suck, and a $6.00 IPO is just sad.
 












Anonymous said:
Lantheus is a dog, no doubt. But you've got some bad information there.

Development of flurpiridaz dates all the way back to 2004.

Availability of cameras doesn't drive development of agents, its the other way around, at least in the beginning.

But Lantheus does suck, and a $6.00 IPO is just sad.
Click to expand...

$6.00 IPO is a perfect price. The only people foolish enough to buy in to this IPO are little kids using their lunch money!
 






Lantheus Holding - Opportunities In A High-Risk Offering

Summary
•Lantheus Holding has finally managed to sell its shares in a disappointing public offering.
•A steep discount was required to induce investors to buy shares in this highly risky offering.

Lantheus Holding (LNTH) has seen a rather disappointing IPO pricing process. The diagnostic medical imaging company managed to sell shares to the public at $6.00 per share. This final price has been set far below the preliminary offering range of $8.50 to $10.50 per share.
 






Anonymous said:
Lantheus Holding - Opportunities In A High-Risk Offering

Summary
•Lantheus Holding has finally managed to sell its shares in a disappointing public offering.
•A steep discount was required to induce investors to buy shares in this highly risky offering.

Lantheus Holding (LNTH) has seen a rather disappointing IPO pricing process. The diagnostic medical imaging company managed to sell shares to the public at $6.00 per share. This final price has been set far below the preliminary offering range of $8.50 to $10.50 per share.
Click to expand...
What! No mention of the soaring phoenix?
 






Anonymous said:
Lantheus Holding - Opportunities In A High-Risk Offering

Summary
•Lantheus Holding has finally managed to sell its shares in a disappointing public offering.
•A steep discount was required to induce investors to buy shares in this highly risky offering.

Lantheus Holding (LNTH) has seen a rather disappointing IPO pricing process. The diagnostic medical imaging company managed to sell shares to the public at $6.00 per share. This final price has been set far below the preliminary offering range of $8.50 to $10.50 per share.
Click to expand...

Attention Kmart shoppers, red light going out of business deal on LMI shares.
Unique "irregular" offering. Buy two get one free.
 






Anonymous said:
Rb-82 Dilemma

Rb-82 PET is not often used by cardiac facilities because there is a much larger installed base of SPECT cameras, and SPECT isotopes have a long history of effective use for coronary disease, deKemp told AuntMinnie.com.

PET cameras have been used mainly for oncology imaging with FDG; fewer systems are dedicated to cardiac imaging. Ottawa Heart Institute, for example, has two SPECT scanners for perfusion imaging with Tc-99m and Tl-201 and one PET scanner for Rb-82 imaging. In terms of total volume, about one-third of the facility's 6,000 annual studies are Rb-82 PET and two-thirds are Tc-99m SPECT.

The impetus for the trial began in 2009, when the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) sent out a call to investigators to identify alternative isotopes for myocardial perfusion imaging due to the severe shortage of Tc-99m.
Click to expand...

At least as far as the last paragraph, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is no connection - the program started long before that and was already in clinical trials in 2009. Read the literature. That makes me wonder about the rest of what you said. deKemp is a smart guy, but a physicist. One leading nuclear cardiology clinician said about SPECT MPI "20% of the time, we're just guessing".
 






Anonymous said:
Pros and Cons

The main positives of SPECT are that it’s much more available and widely used and much cheaper than PET. A SPECT gamma camera costs $400,000 to $600,000, while a PET-CT scanner can cost around $2 million. While PET is more expensive in terms of purchasing equipment, SPECT radio tracers also have half-lives of up to six hours, allowing a lot of imaging time, while PET tracers only have a half-life of about 75 seconds. SPECT radio tracers are also much cheaper and more abundant than PET tracers, Dr. Jain said.

“SPECT is the most well-established modality and is the most widely used,” said Dr. Jain, noting SPECT has been is common use since the early 1990s. “SPECT is not going to go away.”
In 2007, there were 15.9 million SPECT procedures performed, which included 8.3 million nuclear cardiology procedures. In comparison, there were a total of about 1.6 million PET procedures performed in 2007.

However, SPECT has issues, including long scan times and low-resolution images prone to artifacts and attenuation. Some artifacts can easily be misidentified as perfusion defects. SPECT also does not provide a quantifiable estimate of the blood flow, whereas PET does, experts say.

SPECT issues have been partially resolved by technological progress, cutting scan times with triple-headed cameras, improved cameras, computer-aided image enhancement and visual tracking systems to monitor and compensate for patient movement during long scans.

“PET is better in many respects,” Dr. Faulhaber said. “With PET you have less artifacts.”

He said this is especially important when imaging larger patients, because the more tissue gamma rays pass through, it causes attenuation issues.

Other positives of PET are higher spatial resolution and the capability to perform quantitative measurements at the peak of stress and speed. Dr. Faulhaber said PET scan times of 30-40 minutes mean more patients can be processed in a day, instead of the two or more hours it takes for a SPECT scan.
Dr. Jain said PET is not rapidly replacing SPECT because it does have some drawbacks.

“PET is better, but not so much better than SPECT,” Dr. Jain said. “If a new technology is decidedly better it will replace the old technology quickly.”

Dr. Faulhaber agreed, saying PET is only “a little bit better” than SPECT imaging.
Click to expand...
Most of the same things were said about Cardiolite SPECT when Tl-201 planar was what everyone was using. How did that go, now? Worse, "PET" here means Rb-82, which as a radiopharmaceutical is no better (and maybe a bit worse in terms of extraction) than Tc-99m agents except for its low radiation dose and the advantages of PET.
 






Anonymous said:
At least as far as the last paragraph, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is no connection - the program started long before that and was already in clinical trials in 2009. Read the literature. That makes me wonder about the rest of what you said. deKemp is a smart guy, but a physicist. One leading nuclear cardiology clinician said about SPECT MPI "20% of the time, we're just guessing".
Click to expand...

I knew that quote would bubble to the top someday. I heard that 5 years ago as a strategy. That one leading clinician (Heller) has been in bed with this company in all its iterations. The problem they had, was sestamibi was so firmly entrenched in the market they had to invent a campaign to cannabalize Cardiolite and create doubt in order to move the market. The resistance to change, the cost of those new detectors and reimbursement have the odds stacked against it. Nice try but no cigar. Ain't gonna happen.
 












When does exclusivity run out for Definity? I think it's been on the market for around 15 years now. I tbelieve they get 20 years from the filing date of the NDA. If this is the revenue driver they're hanging their hat on, then time is quickly running out with nothing in the pipeline before it goes the way of Cardiolite.
 






anonymous said:
When does exclusivity run out for Definity? I think it's been on the market for around 15 years now. I tbelieve they get 20 years from the filing date of the NDA. If this is the revenue driver they're hanging their hat on, then time is quickly running out with nothing in the pipeline before it goes the way of Cardiolite.
Click to expand...

Uh, it's not called the pipeline there any more. It's called the "gas pipe" and the process is called "syphoning." Suck on that for a while.
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote