An International Survey on Clinical Reporting of PET/CT Examinations: A Starting Point for Cross-Specialty Engagement

Freudenberg, Lutz S.; Hicks, Rodney J.; Beyer, Thomas

doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.218073

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the presentation of hybrid imaging results as part of tumour boards is mainly a domain of radiologists [11]. The reasons for this observed imbalance of reading preference and external communication are not entirely clear but may originate from a traditionally stronger and wider integration of radiology experts in tumour boards and clinical review meetings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of affairs of hybrid imaging in Europe: two multi-national surveys from 2017

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the current state of hybrid imaging in Europe with respect to operations, reading and reporting, as well as qualification and training. Methods The first survey (LOCAL) was sent to the heads of the departments of radiology and nuclear medicine in Europe in 2017, including 15 questions regarding the organisation of hybrid imaging operations, reporting strategies for PET/CT and the existence of relevant training programmes. The second survey (NATIONAL) consisted of 10 questions and was directed to the national ministries of health of 37 European countries addressing combined training options in radiology and nuclear medicine. Results In the LOCAL survey, 61 valid responses from 26 European countries were received. In almost half of the institutions, hybrid imaging was performed within a single department, mainly in nuclear medicine departments (31%). In half of the centres (51%), PET/CT reports were performed jointly, while in 20% of the centres, reporting was performed by nuclear medicine physicians. Radiologists were responsible for presenting hybrid imaging results in clinical boards in 34% of responding sites. Integrated hybrid imaging training was available in 41% sites. In the NATIONAL survey, responses from 34 countries were received and demonstrated a heterogeneous landscape of official training possibilities in radiology and nuclear medicine with limited opportunities for additional qualifications in hybrid imaging. Conclusions The results of these surveys demonstrate a notable heterogeneity in the current practice of hybrid imaging throughout Europe. This heterogeneity exists despite the general consensus that strong professional cooperation is required in order to ensure high clinical quality and to strengthen the clinical role of hybrid imaging.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of affairs of hybrid imaging in Europe: two multi-national surveys from 2017

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…der PET/MRT im Jahr 2010 ist die PET als Hybridbildgebung und Instrument einer bildgesteuerten Präzisionsmedizin zunehmend zu einem Versorgungsstandard in der Onkologie geworden [1]. Die zentrale Schnittstelle in der Kommunikation zwischen den zuweisenden onkologisch tätigen Ärzten und dem befundenden Nuklearmediziner und/oder Radiologen stellt der schriftliche Befund dar, der das Patientenmanagement und Outcome beeinflusst, aber auch juristisch-relevante Dokumentation der erbrachten Leistung und ärztlichen Beurteilung der erhobenen Befunde ist [9,11,12]. Ein qualitativ hochwertiger, strukturierter schriftlicher Befund verdeutlicht auch den Mehrwert einer Hybridbildgebung.…”

Section: Schlussfolgerungenunclassified

“…Bei der Auswertung, Befundung und Interpretation der klinischen Hybridbildgebung kann hingegen eine Heterogenität zwischen verschiedenen Standorten und Fachabteilungen festgestellt werden [7][8][9][10]. Bereits wenige Jahre nach klinischer Einführung der PET/CT stellten die europäischen Fachgesellschaften für Nuklearmedizin und Radiologie fest, dass es keine inhaltliche Trennung zwischen morphologischer Information aus CT oder MRT und molekularer Information der PET geben dürfe; vielmehr sei eine Voreingenommenheit bei der Interpretation von Hybriduntersuchungen aufgrund von Ausbildung und Vorwissen zu vermeiden [2,3].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untitled

2020

Nuklearmedizin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A review of reports from the National Oncologic PET Registry found key components (indication, comparison to prior imaging studies) were missing in over 40% of reports (10). In this issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, the study by Freudenberg et al (11) suggests not only an ongoing lack of adherence to standardized reporting but also a lack of awareness of existing PET/CT reporting guidelines by 30% of the respondents, with a further 15% not using them routinely. This snapshot of oncologic PET/CT reporting practice is based on the results of a web-based questionnaire with 242 evaluable responses, the majority from European specialists trained in radiology, nuclear medicine, or both.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%