An International Survey on Clinical Reporting of PET/CT Examinations: A Starting Point for Cross-Specialty Engagement.

Combined PET/CT imaging has become an integral part of patient management, particularly in oncology. After the imaging examination, a report of the findings is created by expert readers and sent to the referrers as a basis for subsequent decisions. In view of the known wide variation in operational models for PET/CT imaging, we surveyed PET/CT users on their approaches toward PET/CT reporting. The electronic survey comprised 28 questions on the demographics and professional background of the responders, as well as questions on the structure and quality of PET/CT reports, including the type of reported information, the use of reporting standards, and the mix of reporting standards and expert opinions. The survey was active for 6 wk in early 2018. In total, 242 responses were collected worldwide. The responders were mainly from Europe (78%), with 22% being nuclear medicine specialists, 42% radiologists, 22% dual board-certified, 10% residents in either nuclear medicine or radiology, and 5% medical physicists, radiographers, or oncologists. A slim majority (55%) of responses indicated reports being done according to the European Association of Nuclear Medicine 2015 guidelines for F-FDG PET/CT imaging, but 30% of responders were unaware of these guidelines. Report structures varied across sites, with most sites (38%) reporting the PET findings with supplementary localization information from CT, whereas 27% of sites reported along the lines of a CT report with supplementary PET information. One third of the sites included information on the TNM stage of the oncology patient in all reports, whereas 34% and 12% of sites included this information occasionally or only for selected tumors, respectively. For therapy response assessment, various well-established criteria were used. The number of sites utilizing these criteria ranged from 15% (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria) to 57% (Deauville criteria). Broad variation in the PET/CT reporting strategies adopted for oncology studies and widespread lack of awareness of existing guidelines for PET/CT reporting are evident from responses to this survey, raising concerns as to whether reporting clinicians are optimally using the complementary information from each modality. Greater efforts are needed to ensure harmonization of reporting practices.