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

Abstract

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.

Untitled

“…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].…”

“…Befundrichtlinien Hinweise zur PET/CT Befundung im onkologischen Kontext [4,11]. Trotz existierender Handlungsempfehlungen konnten in verschiedenen Studien Defizite in der praktischen PET/CT-Befundung festgestellt werden, sowohl in Bezug auf Form und Inhalt [12,13], als auch in Bezug auf Organisation und Ausbildung [9,10].…”