Gary A Ulaner1, Lorenzo Mannelli, Mark Dunphy. 1. aDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center bDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether second-opinion reviews of PET/CT examinations by subspecialists alter reporting of malignant findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB-approved study compared 240 fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT consecutively dictated reports by two nuclear medicine subspecialists against the original outside institution reports. Subspecialist reviews documented whether malignant findings on the outside report were malignant and noted additional malignant findings not described on the outside report. The final diagnosis of malignancy or benignity was determined by pathology when available, otherwise by imaging follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 22 findings (in 20 reports) called suspicious/malignant on the outside reports were deemed benign by subspecialist review. A final diagnosis was available for 20 of 22 findings by pathology (n=3) or follow-up imaging (n=17). The subspecialist review was accurate in 20 (100%) of 20 cases where a final diagnosis was available. The subspecialist review called 11 findings (in 11 reports) suspicious/malignant that were not described or deemed benign on the outside reports. Definitive diagnosis was available for 10 of 11 findings by pathology (n=7) or follow-up imaging (n=3). The second-opinion report was accurate in seven (70%) of 10 cases where a final diagnosis was available. CONCLUSION: In 31 (13%) of 240 fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT examinations performed at an outside institution, subspecialist review resulted in at least one discordant opinion of malignancy. For 28 discrepant cases where a final diagnosis was available, the subspecialist review defined malignancy or benignity correctly in 25 (89%) of 28 cases. This provides evidence for the cost and effort invested in performing second-opinion reviews of PET/CT studies.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether second-opinion reviews of PET/CT examinations by subspecialists alter reporting of malignant findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB-approved study compared 240 fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT consecutively dictated reports by two nuclear medicine subspecialists against the original outside institution reports. Subspecialist reviews documented whether malignant findings on the outside report were malignant and noted additional malignant findings not described on the outside report. The final diagnosis of malignancy or benignity was determined by pathology when available, otherwise by imaging follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 22 findings (in 20 reports) called suspicious/malignant on the outside reports were deemed benign by subspecialist review. A final diagnosis was available for 20 of 22 findings by pathology (n=3) or follow-up imaging (n=17). The subspecialist review was accurate in 20 (100%) of 20 cases where a final diagnosis was available. The subspecialist review called 11 findings (in 11 reports) suspicious/malignant that were not described or deemed benign on the outside reports. Definitive diagnosis was available for 10 of 11 findings by pathology (n=7) or follow-up imaging (n=3). The second-opinion report was accurate in seven (70%) of 10 cases where a final diagnosis was available. CONCLUSION: In 31 (13%) of 240 fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT examinations performed at an outside institution, subspecialist review resulted in at least one discordant opinion of malignancy. For 28 discrepant cases where a final diagnosis was available, the subspecialist review defined malignancy or benignity correctly in 25 (89%) of 28 cases. This provides evidence for the cost and effort invested in performing second-opinion reviews of PET/CT studies.
Authors: Jessica W T Leung; Frederick R Margolin; Katherine E Dee; Richard P Jacobs; Susan R Denny; John D Schrumpf Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Molly P Hogan; Debra A Goldman; Brittany Dashevsky; Christopher C Riedl; Mithat Gönen; Joseph R Osborne; Maxine Jochelson; Clifford Hudis; Monica Morrow; Gary A Ulaner Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maria J Garcia-Velloso; Gorka Bastarrika; Juan P de-Torres; Maria D Lozano; Pablo Sanchez-Salcedo; Lidia Sancho; Jorge M Nuñez-Cordoba; Arantza Campo; Ana B Alcaide; Wenceslao Torre; Jose A Richter; Javier J Zulueta Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Laurie A Loevner; Adina I Sonners; Brian J Schulman; Kerstin Slawek; Randal S Weber; David I Rosenthal; Gul Moonis; Ara A Chalian Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Vaios Hatzoglou; Antonio M Omuro; Sofia Haque; Yasmin Khakoo; Ian Ganly; Jung Hun Oh; Amita Shukla-Dave; Robin Fatovic; Joshua Gaal; Andrei I Holodny Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sharyl J Nass; Christopher R Cogle; James A Brink; Curtis P Langlotz; Erin P Balogh; Ada Muellner; Dana Siegal; Richard L Schilsky; Hedvig Hricak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter Sawan; Karim Rebeiz; Heiko Schoder; Connie Batlevi; Alison Moskowitz; Gary A Ulaner; Mark Dunphy; Lorenzo Mannelli Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Melvin D'Anastasi; Romeu Domingues; Pek-Lan Khong; Zarina Lockhat; Ada Muellner; Maximilian F Reiser; Richard L Schilsky; Hedvig Hricak Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2017-09-08