Search

Our purpose was to determine the relationship between serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level categories (20 ng/mL) and the incidence of bone metastases detected by total-body 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET/CT and to assess if expanding the 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging field to include the vertex and lower extremities (total-body acquisition) affects bone metastasis detection rates and patient management. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 388 prostate cancer patients enrolled in 5 prospective studies (NCT02940262, NCT03368547, NCT03042312, NCT04050215, and NCT03515577). All underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT scans acquired from vertex to toes for primary staging (n = 93/388, 24%), biochemical recurrence (BCR) localization (n = 225/388, 58%), or restaging metastatic disease (M1) before or during systemic therapy (n = 70/388, 18%) between September 2017 and May 2018. Results: In total, 321 of 388 patients (83%) had a positive 68Ga-PSMA-11 study. PSMA-positive bone lesions were found in 105 of 388 (27%) patients, with an incidence that was positively associated with serum PSA level (

UnlabelledBecause only pathologic examination can confirm the presence or absence of malignant disease in cancer patients, a certain rate of misinterpretation in any kind of imaging study is inevitable. For the accuracy of interpretation to be improved, determination of the nature, causes, and magnitude of this problem is needed. This study was designed to collect pertinent information from physicians referring patients for oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT.MethodsA total of 662 referring physicians completed an 11-question survey focused on their experience with the interpretation of oncologic (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies. The participants were oncologists (36.1%; n = 239), hematologists (14.5%; n = 96), radiation oncologists (7.4%; n = 49), surgeons (33.8%; n = 224), and other physicians (8.2%; n = 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.ResultsPerceived 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 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 discussion with imaging specialists when receiving the results of the examination (38.4%).ConclusionOverinterpretation rather than underinterpretation of oncologic (18)F-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 (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies.