PET-CT—comments on the white paper

Hj, Biersack

doi:10.1007/s00259-008-0844-8

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our survey revealed significant variations in the way standard 18 F-FDG PET/CT acquisitions are conducted among clinical PET/CT users worldwide. Severe and frequent deviations from recommended guidelines are observed in such areas as patient preparation, injected activities, and imaging preconditions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to our survey, only 24% of all PET/CT systems are operated at multidisciplinary centers, such as dedicated PET/CT centers, cancer centers, and diagnostic imaging centers, thus illustrating the close collaboration that is required among clinical and imaging specialists for meaningful 18 F-FDG PET/CT image interpretation despite an ongoing "ownership" debate (7,18). Our survey found that the adoption of PET/CT appeared unrelated to experience with stand-alone PET systems: 59% of sites had prior PET experience and 41% of sites did not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variations in Clinical PET/CT Operations: Results of an International Survey of Active PET/CT Users

Beyer¹,

Czernin²,

Freudenberg³

2011

J Nucl Med

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study gathered information about clinical PET/CT operations worldwide to help guide discussions on the use and standardization of clinical PET/CT. Methods: A Web-based survey of PET/CT users was initiated in November 2009 through e-mail advertising using Academy of Molecular Imaging databases. Recipients were asked 58 questions related to demographics (e.g., location, number of PET/CT systems, and staffing), PET/CT operations and use, and variations in 18 F-FDG oncology imaging protocols. Results: The responders were from centers in the Americas (71%), Europe (22%), AsiaPacific (6%), and Middle East (1%), with most responding sites representing public health care institutions (60%). PET/CT systems were most frequently installed in nuclear medicine departments (59%). Of the sites operating a PET/CT system, 16% had 10 y or more of stand-alone PET experience. About 40% of all sites operated at least 2 PET/CT systems. PET/CT was most frequently used for applications in torso or whole-body oncology (87%), radiation therapy planning (4%), cardiology (4%), and neurology (5%). The average interval of fasting before an 18 F-FDG PET/CT examination was 7 6 3 h (range, 4-12 h). Blood glucose levels were measured at 99% of sites, but acceptable maximal glucose levels varied substantially (an upper limit of 200 mg/dL was applied at .50% of the institutions). A weight-based radioactivity dose injection was performed at 44% of sites. The mean 18 F-FDG activity injected was 390 MBq (range, 110-585 MBq) for 3-dimensional PET of a 75-kg patient. The mean uptake time was 64 6 14 min (range, 20-90 min). Split protocols involving patient repositioning and adapted imaging parameters were used at 51% of sites. Only 41% used patient positioning aids. Intravenous or oral CT contrast material was used at 52% of sites in up to 25% of patients. Most sites (90%) measured maximum standardized uptake value as an index of tissue glucose use. Only 62% of sites provided a fully integrated PET/CT report. Conclusion: An international survey among clinical PET/CT users revealed significant variations in standard 18 F-FDG PET/CT protocols. This finding illustrates the need for continuous training and ongoing standardization in an effort to optimize PET/CT in oncology.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in Clinical PET/CT Operations: Results of an International Survey of Active PET/CT Users

Beyer¹,

Czernin²,

Freudenberg³

2011

J Nucl Med

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Germany, a similar program leading up to the 2 board certifications requires a total 8.5 y of study. As this is a much longer period than the one proposed by Segall et al (1), we believe that 2 independent training programs are necessary to adequately train nuclear medicine and radiology residents (3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Nuclear Medicine Training: Two Different Pathways?

Biersack

2018

J Nucl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The ''white paper'' has been an interesting basis for a discussion, but this discussion is over now: Let's practice PET/CT and SPECT/CT together without relying on a stupid short-term training certificate''. 30 Moreover, further comments of the white paper proposal were published in the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 31 In particular, these authors offer the view of medical practitioners and researchers who have encountered hybrid imaging, either earlier in their career or later and have experienced the limitations of the current training and research opportunities.…”

Section: Training Programs In Europementioning

confidence: 99%

“…[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] The following sections address separately the current positions and trends regarding educational programs in hybrid imaging in the USA and in Europe, considering that a common European or USA document on the educational needs concerning hybrid imaging is lacking. For better clarity and comprehension, a glossary of terms is provided in Table 3.…”

Section: Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%