UNLABELLED: Oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT is rapidly gaining acceptance in clinical practice. However, the referring physician's attitude toward the usefulness of this diagnostic modality is unknown. This survey was undertaken to collect information regarding the current perspective of referring physicians on oncologic PET/CT. METHODS: We conducted a prospective worldwide, Web-based survey of physicians who manage cancer patients. A total of 963 referring physicians completed a 20-question survey focused on their experience with oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Attention was directed toward their confidence about indications, their satisfaction with related educational resources, the quality of interaction with interpreting physicians, and practical problems encountered. The respondents included oncologists (38.5%, n = 371), hematologists (16.4%, n = 158), radiation oncologists (9.0%, n = 87), surgeons (30.3%, n = 292), and other physicians (5.7%, n = 55). RESULTS: Only 25.2% of respondents considered the oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT indications to be well established and defined. Frequent uncertainty about the need for a PET scan was indicated by 62.3% of the respondents. High cost and overinterpretation of findings were the most commonly reported concerns (47.0% and 40.9%, respectively). The experience and skill level of the interpreting physician was considered very important by 96.8% of the surveyed physicians. CONCLUSION: Referring physicians expressed considerable uncertainty about the appropriate use of oncologic PET/CT. Additional major concerns are procedure costs and quality of interpretation. The responses suggest a strong need for efforts to educate referring and interpreting physicians about the appropriate use of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in oncology.
UNLABELLED: Oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT is rapidly gaining acceptance in clinical practice. However, the referring physician's attitude toward the usefulness of this diagnostic modality is unknown. This survey was undertaken to collect information regarding the current perspective of referring physicians on oncologic PET/CT. METHODS: We conducted a prospective worldwide, Web-based survey of physicians who manage cancerpatients. A total of 963 referring physicians completed a 20-question survey focused on their experience with oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Attention was directed toward their confidence about indications, their satisfaction with related educational resources, the quality of interaction with interpreting physicians, and practical problems encountered. The respondents included oncologists (38.5%, n = 371), hematologists (16.4%, n = 158), radiation oncologists (9.0%, n = 87), surgeons (30.3%, n = 292), and other physicians (5.7%, n = 55). RESULTS: Only 25.2% of respondents considered the oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT indications to be well established and defined. Frequent uncertainty about the need for a PET scan was indicated by 62.3% of the respondents. High cost and overinterpretation of findings were the most commonly reported concerns (47.0% and 40.9%, respectively). The experience and skill level of the interpreting physician was considered very important by 96.8% of the surveyed physicians. CONCLUSION: Referring physicians expressed considerable uncertainty about the appropriate use of oncologic PET/CT. Additional major concerns are procedure costs and quality of interpretation. The responses suggest a strong need for efforts to educate referring and interpreting physicians about the appropriate use of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in oncology.
Authors: Dimitrios Karantanis; Dimitrios Kalkanis; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann; Kelsey L Pomykala; Trond V Bogsrud; Rathan M Subramaniam; Val J Lowe; Martin S Allen-Auerbach Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 10.057