Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: Referring physicians' point of view

Dimitrios Karantanis, Dimitrios Kalkanis, Martin Allen-Auerbach, Trond Velde Bogsrud, Rathan M. Subramaniam, Adam Danielson, Val J. Lowe, Johannes Czernin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Oncologic 18F-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 18F-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 18F-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 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1499-1505
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Nuclear Medicine
Volume53
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2012

Fingerprint

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Physicians
Uncertainty
Costs and Cost Analysis
Positron-Emission Tomography
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • FDG PET/CT
  • Indications
  • Oncology
  • Problems
  • Survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Karantanis, D., Kalkanis, D., Allen-Auerbach, M., Bogsrud, T. V., Subramaniam, R. M., Danielson, A., ... Czernin, J. (2012). Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: Referring physicians' point of view. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 53(10), 1499-1505. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.102228

Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT : Referring physicians' point of view. / Karantanis, Dimitrios; Kalkanis, Dimitrios; Allen-Auerbach, Martin; Bogsrud, Trond Velde; Subramaniam, Rathan M.; Danielson, Adam; Lowe, Val J.; Czernin, Johannes.

In: Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 53, No. 10, 01.10.2012, p. 1499-1505.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Karantanis, D, Kalkanis, D, Allen-Auerbach, M, Bogsrud, TV, Subramaniam, RM, Danielson, A, Lowe, VJ & Czernin, J 2012, 'Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: Referring physicians' point of view', Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 1499-1505. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.102228
Karantanis D, Kalkanis D, Allen-Auerbach M, Bogsrud TV, Subramaniam RM, Danielson A et al. Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: Referring physicians' point of view. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2012 Oct 1;53(10):1499-1505. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.102228
Karantanis, Dimitrios ; Kalkanis, Dimitrios ; Allen-Auerbach, Martin ; Bogsrud, Trond Velde ; Subramaniam, Rathan M. ; Danielson, Adam ; Lowe, Val J. ; Czernin, Johannes. / Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT : Referring physicians' point of view. In: Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 53, No. 10. pp. 1499-1505.
@article{7f7116d9cfe042b292e7e3fcd3e8e9d6,
title = "Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: Referring physicians' point of view",
abstract = "Oncologic 18F-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 18F-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 18F-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 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncology.",
keywords = "FDG PET/CT, Indications, Oncology, Problems, Survey",
author = "Dimitrios Karantanis and Dimitrios Kalkanis and Martin Allen-Auerbach and Bogsrud, {Trond Velde} and Subramaniam, {Rathan M.} and Adam Danielson and Lowe, {Val J.} and Johannes Czernin",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2967/jnumed.111.102228",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "1499--1505",
journal = "Journal of Nuclear Medicine",
issn = "0161-5505",
publisher = "Society of Nuclear Medicine Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT

T2 - Referring physicians' point of view

AU - Karantanis, Dimitrios

AU - Kalkanis, Dimitrios

AU - Allen-Auerbach, Martin

AU - Bogsrud, Trond Velde

AU - Subramaniam, Rathan M.

AU - Danielson, Adam

AU - Lowe, Val J.

AU - Czernin, Johannes

PY - 2012/10/1

Y1 - 2012/10/1

N2 - Oncologic 18F-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 18F-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 18F-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 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncology.

AB - Oncologic 18F-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 18F-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 18F-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 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncology.

KW - FDG PET/CT

KW - Indications

KW - Oncology

KW - Problems

KW - Survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867045198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867045198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2967/jnumed.111.102228

DO - 10.2967/jnumed.111.102228

M3 - Article

C2 - 22917886

AN - SCOPUS:84867045198

VL - 53

SP - 1499

EP - 1505

JO - Journal of Nuclear Medicine

JF - Journal of Nuclear Medicine

SN - 0161-5505

IS - 10

ER -