Hi, well I certainly hope its within a month or two,
The LCD was submitted for board review in August, i only hope that the LCD board will not demand to wait and see what the user trails with John Hopkins which are yet to be completed.
Hopefully they will issue the LCD based on the other clinical evidence, which I understand is very plentiful.
Cxbladder is now also included in the NCCN guidelines as an approved intervention for patientsbeing monitored for the recurrence of UC.
so I think its going to look a bit odd if they rule against one of the most respected entities for the disease.
The CX bladder tests are game changing ( and this has been evidenced in NZ with a massive uptake in testing.
The time and savings that health institutions can get are outlined below:
The test is also very accurate as outlined below
as a comparison other tests commonly used outlined below are far less accurate and usually lead the doctor to not knowing if its cancer or not so then he is forced to do the more invasive test (cystoscopy ) in order to try find out - but as can be seen, even that is less accurate than CX bladder.
Below are the tests that without cx bladder that are commonly used and how accurate they are ( or should I say how inaccurate compared to CX bladder thet are) Did I saty that CX Bladder is a game changer?
kind regards fp
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
