Clinical importance of re-interpretation of PET/CT scanning in patients referred to a tertiary care medical centre
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Clinical importance of re-interpretation of PET/CT scanning in patients referred to a tertiary care medical centre. / Löfgren, Johan; Loft, Annika; Barbosa de Lima, Vinicius Araújo; Østerlind, Kell; von Benzon, Eric; Højgaard, Liselotte.
In: Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, Vol. 37, No. 2, 03.2017, p. 143-147.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical importance of re-interpretation of PET/CT scanning in patients referred to a tertiary care medical centre
AU - Löfgren, Johan
AU - Loft, Annika
AU - Barbosa de Lima, Vinicius Araújo
AU - Østerlind, Kell
AU - von Benzon, Eric
AU - Højgaard, Liselotte
N1 - © 2015 The Authors. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine.
PY - 2017/3
Y1 - 2017/3
N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate, in a controlled prospective manner with double-blind read, whether there are differences in interpretations of PET/CT scans at our tertiary medical centre, Rigshospitalet, compared to the external hospitals.METHODS: Ninety consecutive patients referred to our department who had an external F-18-FDG PET/CT scan were included. Only information that had been available at the time of the initial reading at the external hospital was available at re-interpretation. Teams with one radiologist and one nuclear medicine physician working side by side performed the re-interpretation in consensus. Two oncologists subsequently and independently compared the original reports with the re-interpretation reports. In case of 'major discordance', the oncologists assessed the respective reports validities.RESULTS: The interpretations were graded as 'accordant' in 43 patients (48%), 'minor discordance' in 30 patients (33%) and 'major discordance' in 17 patients (19%). In 11 (65%) of the 17 cases graded as 'major discordance', it was possible to determine which report that was most correct. In 9 of these 11 cases (82%), the re-interpretation was most correct; in one case, the original report and in another case, both interpretations were incorrect.CONCLUSIONS: Major discordant interpretations were frequent [19% (17 of 90 cases)]. In those cases where follow-up could assess the validity, the re-interpretation at Rigshospitalet was most correct in 9 of 11 cases (82%), indicating that there is a difference in expertise in interpreting PET/CT at a tertiary referral hospital compared to primary local hospitals.
AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate, in a controlled prospective manner with double-blind read, whether there are differences in interpretations of PET/CT scans at our tertiary medical centre, Rigshospitalet, compared to the external hospitals.METHODS: Ninety consecutive patients referred to our department who had an external F-18-FDG PET/CT scan were included. Only information that had been available at the time of the initial reading at the external hospital was available at re-interpretation. Teams with one radiologist and one nuclear medicine physician working side by side performed the re-interpretation in consensus. Two oncologists subsequently and independently compared the original reports with the re-interpretation reports. In case of 'major discordance', the oncologists assessed the respective reports validities.RESULTS: The interpretations were graded as 'accordant' in 43 patients (48%), 'minor discordance' in 30 patients (33%) and 'major discordance' in 17 patients (19%). In 11 (65%) of the 17 cases graded as 'major discordance', it was possible to determine which report that was most correct. In 9 of these 11 cases (82%), the re-interpretation was most correct; in one case, the original report and in another case, both interpretations were incorrect.CONCLUSIONS: Major discordant interpretations were frequent [19% (17 of 90 cases)]. In those cases where follow-up could assess the validity, the re-interpretation at Rigshospitalet was most correct in 9 of 11 cases (82%), indicating that there is a difference in expertise in interpreting PET/CT at a tertiary referral hospital compared to primary local hospitals.
U2 - 10.1111/cpf.12278
DO - 10.1111/cpf.12278
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 26211508
VL - 37
SP - 143
EP - 147
JO - Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging
JF - Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging
SN - 1475-0961
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 164155405