Because only pathologic examination can confirm the presence or absence of

Because only pathologic examination can confirm the presence or absence of malignant disease in malignancy patients a certain rate of misinterpretation in any kind of imaging study is inevitable. = 96) radiation oncologists (7.4%; = 49) surgeons (33.8%; = 224) and other physicians (8.2%; = 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 MLN4924 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 conversation with imaging specialists when receiving the results of the examination (38.4%). Conclusion Overinterpretation rather than underinterpretation of oncologic 18F-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 18F-FDG PET/CT studies. = 37). RESULTS Of the 699 respondents who completed the survey 662 (94.7%) were eligible for inclusion. Of the eligible participants�� responses 47.3% (= 313) were from Europe 35 (= 232) were from North America 12.4% (= 82) were from Asia 3.1% (= 21) were from Australia and New Zealand 1.1% (= 7) were from Africa and 1.1% (= 7) were from South America. Of the 662 participants 36.1% (= 239) were oncologists 33.8% (= 224) were surgeons 14.5% (= 96) were hematologists 7.4% (= 49) were radiation oncologists and 7.7% (= 51) had various clinical specialties. Three of the participants (0.5%) did not declare their specialty. Most of MLN4924 the respondents (85.8%; 568/662) indicated that they used MLN4924 medicine in an academic environment 6.5% (43/662) practiced in a nonacademic environment general public hospital 5 (33/662) were in private practice and 2.7% (18/662) refrained from answering this question. Most of the respondents (95.6%; 633/662) indicated that they were ordering 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations at the time that they responded to the survey. For each question there were a limited number of participants who did not provide a response. A total of 197 of 653 respondents (30.2%) estimated that misinterpretations occurred in 10%-20% of all cases whereas 29.1% Mouse monoclonal to SORL1 reported misinterpretation rates of 5%-10% (question 1; Fig. 1). Thus 59.3% of respondents estimated that misinterpretation rates ranged from 5% to 20%. A total of 136 of 653 respondents (20.8%) estimated that misinterpretation rates were less than 5% whereas 12.7% (83/653) thought that the rates were 20%-30%. Very few respondents (4.6%; 30/653) indicated that 18F-FDG PET/CT misinterpretations were very frequent at 30%-40%. Physique 1 Responses to question 1: What is your estimation of the percentage of 18F-FDG MLN4924 PET/CT studies that are misinterpreted by the radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians reporting the scan results? The answers to the question regarding over-versus under-interpretation (question 2; Fig. 2) suggested that PET/CT studies most frequently resulted in overinterpretation as indicated by 450 of 653 respondents (68.9%). In contrast only 146 of 653 participants (22.4%) responded that overinterpretation and underinterpretation occurred at similar rates whereas only 57 of 653 respondents (8.7%) were predominantly concerned about underinterpretation of 18F-FDG PET/CT studies. Physique 2 Responses to question 2: In your experience when an 18F-FDG PET/CT study is misinterpreted is the reason most often overinterpretation (false-positive results) underinterpretation (false-negative results) or an equal frequency of overinterpretation.