» Articles » PMID: 22917886

Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: Referring Physicians' Point of View

Overview
Journal J Nucl Med
Specialty Nuclear Medicine
Date 2012 Aug 25
PMID 22917886
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Exploring the efficacy of F-FDG PET/CT in hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis: role of Ki-67 index and tumor differentiation.

Yin Y, Liu J, Sun R, Liu X, Zhou Z, Zhang H Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023; 48(11):3408-3419.

PMID: 37682282 PMC: 10556170. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-023-04027-4.


Is F-FDG PET/CT Beneficial for Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients With Low Proportion of ER Expression?.

Liu J, Sun R, Yin Y, Li J, Liu X, Liu S Front Oncol. 2021; 11:755899.

PMID: 34804947 PMC: 8599817. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.755899.


How We Read Oncologic FDG PET/CT.

Hofman M, Hicks R Cancer Imaging. 2016; 16(1):35.

PMID: 27756360 PMC: 5067887. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-016-0091-3.


Perceived misinterpretation rates in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT studies: a survey of referring physicians.

Karantanis D, Kalkanis D, Czernin J, Herrmann K, Pomykala K, Bogsrud T J Nucl Med. 2014; 55(12):1925-9.

PMID: 25453041 PMC: 4324619. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.114.145607.


Ability of 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT to detect incidental cancer.

Sone Y, Sobajima A, Kawachi T, Kohara S, Kato K, Naganawa S Br J Radiol. 2014; 87(1042):20140030.

PMID: 25117626 PMC: 4170860. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20140030.