Dimitrios Karantanis1, Dimitrios Kalkanis2, Johannes Czernin3, Ken Herrmann4, Kelsey L Pomykala3, Trond V Bogsrud5, Rathan M Subramaniam6, Val J Lowe7, Martin S Allen-Auerbach3. 1. Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California Department of Nuclear Medicine, Greek Air Force Hospital, Athens, Greece dkarantanis@nuclmed.net. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Greek Air Force Hospital, Athens, Greece. 3. Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 4. Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET-Center, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; and. 7. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Because only pathologic examination can confirm the presence or absence of malignant disease in cancer patients, a certain rate of misinterpretation in any kind of imaging study is inevitable. For the accuracy of interpretation to be improved, determination of the nature, causes, and magnitude of this problem is needed. This study was designed to collect pertinent information from physicians referring patients for oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT. METHODS: A total of 662 referring physicians completed an 11-question survey focused on their experience with the interpretation of oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies. The participants were oncologists (36.1%; n = 239), hematologists (14.5%; n = 96), radiation oncologists (7.4%; n = 49), surgeons (33.8%; n = 224), and other physicians (8.2%; n = 54). Questions were aimed at determining the frequency, nature, and causes of scan misinterpretations as well as potential solutions to reduce the frequency of misinterpretations. RESULTS: Perceived misinterpretation rates ranged from 5% to 20%, according to most (59.3%) of the participants; 20.8% of respondents reported rates of less than 5%. Overinterpretation rather than underinterpretation was more frequently encountered (68.9% vs. 8.7%, respectively). Limited availability of a patient's history and limited experience of interpreters were the major contributors to this phenomenon, according to 46.8% and 26.7% of the participants, respectively. The actions most commonly suggested to reduce misinterpretation rates (multiple suggestions were possible) were the institution of multidisciplinary meetings (59.8%), the provision of adequate history when ordering an examination (37.4%), and a discussion with imaging specialists when receiving the results of the examination (38.4%). CONCLUSION: Overinterpretation rather than underinterpretation of oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies prevails in clinical practice, according to referring physicians. Closer collaboration of imaging specialists with referring physicians through more multidisciplinary meetings, improved communication, and targeted training of interpreting physicians are actions suggested to reduce the rates of misinterpretation of oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies.
UNLABELLED: Because only pathologic examination can confirm the presence or absence of malignant disease in cancerpatients, a certain rate of misinterpretation in any kind of imaging study is inevitable. For the accuracy of interpretation to be improved, determination of the nature, causes, and magnitude of this problem is needed. This study was designed to collect pertinent information from physicians referring patients for oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT. METHODS: A total of 662 referring physicians completed an 11-question survey focused on their experience with the interpretation of oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies. The participants were oncologists (36.1%; n = 239), hematologists (14.5%; n = 96), radiation oncologists (7.4%; n = 49), surgeons (33.8%; n = 224), and other physicians (8.2%; n = 54). Questions were aimed at determining the frequency, nature, and causes of scan misinterpretations as well as potential solutions to reduce the frequency of misinterpretations. RESULTS: Perceived misinterpretation rates ranged from 5% to 20%, according to most (59.3%) of the participants; 20.8% of respondents reported rates of less than 5%. Overinterpretation rather than underinterpretation was more frequently encountered (68.9% vs. 8.7%, respectively). Limited availability of a patient's history and limited experience of interpreters were the major contributors to this phenomenon, according to 46.8% and 26.7% of the participants, respectively. The actions most commonly suggested to reduce misinterpretation rates (multiple suggestions were possible) were the institution of multidisciplinary meetings (59.8%), the provision of adequate history when ordering an examination (37.4%), and a discussion with imaging specialists when receiving the results of the examination (38.4%). CONCLUSION: Overinterpretation rather than underinterpretation of oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies prevails in clinical practice, according to referring physicians. Closer collaboration of imaging specialists with referring physicians through more multidisciplinary meetings, improved communication, and targeted training of interpreting physicians are actions suggested to reduce the rates of misinterpretation of oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies.
Authors: Dimitrios Karantanis; Dimitrios Kalkanis; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Trond Velde Bogsrud; Rathan M Subramaniam; Adam Danielson; Val J Lowe; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mylene T Truong; Jeremy J Erasmus; Reginald F Munden; Edith M Marom; Bradley S Sabloff; Gregory W Gladish; Donald A Podoloff; Homer A Macapinlac Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Dawei Liu; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Donald A Podoloff; Douglas W Ball; Edgar Ben-Josef; Al B Benson; Steven J Cohen; R Edward Coleman; Dominique Delbeke; Maria Ho; David H Ilson; Gregory P Kalemkerian; Richard J Lee; Jay S Loeffler; Homer A Macapinlac; Robert J Morgan; Barry Alan Siegel; Seema Singhal; Douglas S Tyler; Richard J Wong Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jung Min Chang; Hyun Ju Lee; Jin Mo Goo; Ho-Young Lee; Jong Jin Lee; June-Key Chung; Jung-Gi Im Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2006 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 3.500