CONTINUING EDUCATION

Reporting Guidance for Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging

Ryan D. Niederkohr1, Bennett S. Greenspan2, John O. Prior3, Heiko Schöder4, Marc A. Seltzer5,
Katherine A. Zukotynski6,7, and Eric M. Rohren8
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Santa Clara, California; 2Department of Radiology, Medical

College of Georgia/Georgia Regents University, Augusta, Georgia; 3Department of Nuclear Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital,
Lausanne, Switzerland; 4Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; 5Department of
Radiology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire; 6Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 7Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and 8Department of
Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

Learning Objectives: On successful completion of this activity, participants should be able to discuss (1) the elements of a concise and complete oncologic
18F-FDG PET/CT report; (2) the importance of obtaining and including in the report a focused history of the patient malignancy and treatments; and (3) the

importance of interpreting both the 18F-FDG PET and the CT findings of PET/CT and of integrating both the metabolic and the anatomic components in the
report.
Financial Disclosure: The authors of this article have indicated no relevant relationships that could be perceived as a real or apparent conflict of interest.
CME Credit: SNMMI is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to sponsor continuing education for physicians.
SNMMI designates each JNM continuing education article for a maximum of 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits. Physicians should claim only credit
commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. For CE credit, participants can access this activity through the SNMMI Web site (http://
www.snmmi.org/ce_online) through May 31, 2016.

addressed the topic of reporting quality in the medical lit-

The written report (or its electronic counterpart) is the primary erature. Studying the process and quality of reporting not
mode of communication between the physician interpreting an only is a necessity but also provides a unique opportunity to
imaging study and the referring physician. The content of this examine and refine the role imaging physicians play in
report not only influences patient management and clinical
outcomes but also serves as legal documentation of services
medical care (3).
provided and can be used to justify medical necessity, billing The number of combined PET/CT studies performed
accuracy, and regulatory compliance. Generating a high-quality annually has markedly increased over the last decade. It is es-
PET/CT report is perhaps more challenging than generating timated that between 2001 and 2010, the number of active
a report for other imaging studies because of the complexity of PET/CT systems in the United States increased by approxi-
this hybrid imaging modality. This article discusses the essential mately 10-fold (from approximately 200 to more than 2,000),
elements of a concise and complete oncologic 18F-FDG PET/
and the number of PET examinations performed in the United
CT report and illustrates these elements through examples
taken from routine clinical practice.
States increased nearly 7-fold (from about 250,000 to more
than 1.7 million) (4). At some institutions, PET/CT is now the
Key Words: oncology; PET/CT; reporting
most frequently performed nuclear medicine imaging study,
J Nucl Med 2013; 54:756–761
surpassing myocardial perfusion imaging among others. This
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.112177
dramatic increase in PET/CT volume highlights the growing
clinical acceptance and importance of hybrid anatomic and
functional imaging.
At present, most PET/CT scans include imaging of the
A t most facilities, the written report (or its electronic
counterpart) is the primary mode of communication be-
neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. The interpreting physician
must review both the PET and the CT components of the
tween the physician interpreting an imaging study and the study and must integrate the anatomic and metabolic findings
referring physician. This report often serves as the basis for into a single unified report. This merging of large diagnostic
medical treatment decisions (1) and is used by third-party datasets from both the PET and the CT components magnifies
payers to justify medical necessity for the study and validity the importance of careful and concise reporting.
of reimbursement (2). Several authors have previously In practice, PET/CT reports vary widely in format, content,
and quality. This variance may, at least in part, stem from the
Received Jan. 16, 2013; revision accepted Mar. 29, 2013.
different training backgrounds of the physicians interpreting
For correspondence or reprints contact: Ryan Niederkohr, Kaiser Permanente PET/CT studies today (i.e., primary training in diagnostic
Medical Center, 700 Lawrence Expressway, Department 120, Santa Clara, CA
95051.
radiology or nuclear medicine). A recent review of data from
E-mail: ryan.d.niederkohr@kp.org the National Oncologic PET Registry evaluated PET reports
Published online Apr. 10, 2013.
COPYRIGHT ª 2013 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular
from a broad spectrum of practices throughout the United
Imaging, Inc. States. The authors of this study defined “essential elements”

756 THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE • Vol. 54 • No. 5 • May 2013

for a PET report and found that essential elements were miss- ing guidelines for all diagnostic imaging studies (17,18). Other
ing from many PET reports. Of note, certain critical elements organizations, including the World Health Organization, Na-
(e.g., study indication, treatment history, comparison to prior tional Center for Health Statistics, American Medical Associ-
imaging studies, and time from radiopharmaceutical injection ation (for Current Procedural Terminology coding), and
to imaging) were missing from over 40% of reports (5). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (for clinical
Despite the importance of proper reporting, education on laboratory improvement amendments), have additional key
reporting technique varies widely among radiology and nuclear elements related to coding and billing and to justification
medicine training programs (6). Reporting quality can be dif- of medical necessity (5). Table 1 provides a summary of all
ficult to define and therefore difficult to teach. Nevertheless, it elements considered essential to 18F-FDG PET/CT reporting.
is clear that certain elements should be included in a PET/CT
report so that clinical, regulatory, and financial requirements HOW CAN THESE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS BE
are met. The objectives of this article are to describe the ele- INCLUDED IN REPORTS?
ments of a concise and complete oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT Clinical History
report and to illustrate these elements through examples taken Results in the literature suggest that the availability of
from routine clinical practice. clinical history increases the accuracy of radiologic image
interpretation (19–22). When referring a patient for PET/
WHY IS HIGH-QUALITY PET/CT REPORTING CT imaging, the referring physician should provide an ap-
IMPORTANT? propriate indication for the study and clearly state the pri-
The accuracy of image interpretation and the quality of mary clinical questions to be answered by the scan. Such
the diagnostic report are critical to the continued success of information helps the interpreting physicians to provide an
PET/CT in the medical community. When referring physi- accurate, clinically relevant report. When the clinical infor-
cians receive a high-quality, clinically relevant report their mation provided by the referring physician is inadequate, re-
confidence in (and subsequent use of) this imaging modality view of the medical record (facilitated by the increasing use
may increase. Unfortunately, the converse is also true: when of electronic medical record systems) is strongly encouraged.
referring physicians receive reports that are confusing or Documentation in the report that this clinical information was
contribute little to patient care, the value of PET/CT is di- reviewed informs the referring physician of the key factors
minished and the test could potentially be considered un- that were considered by the physician interpreting the imag-
necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that reports be of high ing study (5).
quality, both for optimal patient outcome and for the long-term The level of detail in the clinical history section of
success and viability of PET/CT as an imaging modality. the report can vary depending on personal preference, but
In addition, the imaging report should be considered the following data should be included: the indication for the
a legal document that can be used as the basis for (or scan, the tumor type and site of disease, a brief statement
defense of) litigation in medical malpractice cases. Issues regarding previous or ongoing treatment (e.g., chemotherapy
surrounding the diagnosis of cancer (e.g., delay in cancer or the type and date of previous radiation or surgery), and any
diagnosis; misdiagnosis of extent of cancer spread result- specific clinical questions raised by the referring clinician.
ing in undertreatment or unnecessary treatment; or false- Explicit use of terminology that conforms with national or
positive diagnosis of cancer) are among the most common local regulatory requirements is strongly advised (e.g., Centers
reasons for malpractice litigation in radiology, in addition for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidelines in the United
to the appropriate detection of incidental or unexpected States favor use of terminology such as initial treatment
findings (7–13). Particular attention to these questions is strategy and subsequent treatment strategy) (23). Additional
needed in oncologic PET/CT imaging, because the scan pertinent medical or surgical history that may have relevance
covers a large body region. Inaccurate, inadequate, or vague to PET/CT interpretation should be mentioned (e.g., sarcoido-
reporting increases the imaging physician’s risk of adverse liti- sis or rheumatoid arthritis). Examples of clinical history state-
gation outcomes whereas accurate, concise, and clear reporting ments include the following: “58-y-old man with diffuse large
technique may reduce this risk. B-cell lymphoma. PET/CT performed for initial staging before
therapy (development of initial treatment strategy)”; “68-y-old
WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF AN man with stage III diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, treated with
ONCOLOGIC 18F-FDG PET/CT REPORT? 6 cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy completed July 7, 2012.
The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging PET/CT performed to assess treatment response (development
(SNMMI), American College of Radiology (ACR), and of subsequent treatment strategy)”; “60-y-old woman with
European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) (in stage I colorectal cancer, 1 y after right hemicolectomy in June
addition to national societies of individual countries) have 2011 with no adjuvant chemotherapy, now with rising CEA.
published practice guidelines specific to 18F-FDG PET and CT of the abdomen and pelvis on May 5, 2012, showed no
PET/CT that list the essential elements that should be in- evidence of recurrence of metastasis. PET/CT obtained to eval-
cluded in the imaging report of such studies (14–16). In uate for residual or recurrent malignancy (development of sub-
addition, SNMMI and ACR have also published general report- sequent treatment strategy).”

ONCOLOGIC PET/CT REPORTING GUIDANCE • Niederkohr et al. 757

 TABLE 1
Essential Elements of 18F-FDG PET/CT Reporting

Element Description

Clinical history Indication for study

Cancer type and site, if applicable
Brief review of treatment history, if applicable
Technique/procedure Radiopharmaceutical name
Radiopharmaceutical dose/activity
Route of radiopharmaceutical administration
Uptake time (i.e., from radiopharmaceutical injection to imaging)
Blood glucose level
Ancillary medications administered, if applicable
Precise body region scanned
CT technique (including whether oral or intravenous contrast was used;
if used, name and volume of agent)
Comparison studies Whether comparison was made with prior PET or PET/CT studies;
include dates when available
Whether correlation was made with prior non-PET imaging studies
(e.g., CT or MR imaging); include dates when available
Findings Location, size/extent, and intensity of sites of abnormal 18F-FDG uptake
Abnormal PET findings correlated with concurrent CT images or correlative
imaging studies, if applicable
Incidental PET findings
Incidental CT findings
Impression Clear identification of study as normal vs. abnormal
Interpretation of findings, rather than just restatement of findings
Succinct differential diagnosis provided, if applicable
Recommendations for follow-up studies, if applicable
Documentation of communication of urgent or emergent findings to
referring physician or surrogate

Technique/Procedure propriate anatomic nomenclature. For example, at some

This section documents how the study was generated so institutions some patients with cancers of the head and neck
that comparison with subsequent studies can be performed. are scanned from the skull vertex to the upper pelvis. True
The following information should be included in the technique whole-body scans (often performed on patients with mela-
section of every report: radiopharmaceutical name, adminis- noma or myeloma) typically extend from the skull vertex
tered activity, route of administration, and uptake time (i.e., through the feet.
time from injection to imaging). Precise radiopharmaceu- In certain cases, PET/CT protocols may include additional
tical dose (if necessary, corrected for residual activity in the acquisitions such as delayed imaging. Certain patients may
syringe or intravenous tubing; for example, “9.6 mCi [355 be scanned in specific positions, such as prone positioning, or
MBq]” rather than “approximately 10 mCi [370 MBq]” and using an immobilization device or face mask for radiation
precise uptake time (e.g., “68 min” rather than “approxi- treatment planning. These additions to the standard PET/CT
mately 60 min”) should be reported since both parameters acquisition should be described. If SUVs are reported in the
affect semiquantitative measures (e.g., standardized uptake findings section of the report, the technique section should
value [SUV]) and may affect comparison with future or prior specify which SUV parameter (e.g., maximum, peak, nor-
studies. Any ancillary medications administered before the malized to body weight, lean body mass, or body surface
study should also be listed (e.g., furosemide, 20 mg intrave- area) is recorded.
nously, given 30 min after 18F-FDG injection, or lorazepam, 1 Finally, the PET/CT report should clearly describe the CT
mg orally, given 1 h before tracer injection). SNMMI, ACR, technique. In particular, the report should clearly state whether
and EANM guidelines recommend measuring and reporting the CT technique was fully optimized (e.g., with full tube
blood glucose levels (in units appropriate for the locale) for current and intravenous or oral contrast as appropriate) or
patients undergoing 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT (14–16). whether a low-dose, non–contrast-enhanced technique was
Regardless of whether the PET/CT is coded as a limited used primarily for anatomic localization and attenuation cor-
or regional study (e.g., “brain only or skull vertex through rection. If contrast was used, the type and volume of contrast
adrenal glands”), “skull base to mid thigh,” or “true whole- agent should be stated. The term nondiagnostic CT should be
body study (skull vertex to feet),” the actual axial coverage avoided since even low-dose, unenhanced CT scans contain
of the scan should be documented in the report using ap- valuable diagnostic information that should be reported and

758 THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE • Vol. 54 • No. 5 • May 2013

used in the interpretation of the PET portion of the PET/CT This format generally begins with a description of the
examination. Details regarding adverse reactions to con- primary PET findings, including positive and negative
trast material (including signs, symptoms, and treatment) findings that are directly relevant to the clinical question
and any significant deviation from standard protocol and that describe the primary or dominant sites of disease.
should be included in the report. In some states or coun- This is followed by a description of PET findings suspected
tries, the inclusion of CT parameters (i.e., kVp and mAs) to represent disease spread to regional lymph nodes or distant
or patient radiation exposure estimate from the CT com- sites. Next, incidental PET findings are described (i.e., 18F-
ponent of the examination (e.g., CT dose index in mGy or FDG–avid lesions suspected to represent a benign or malig-
dose–length product in mGy
cm) may be required by law. nant process unrelated to the primary cancer being studied,
Maximal SUV (based on actual body weight) is reported. such as incidental pituitary adenoma, Warthin tumor, sus-
An example technique section is as follows: pected colon polyp, or diffuse thyroidal 18F-FDG uptake sug-
gestive of thyroiditis). This is followed by a description of
Radiopharmaceutical: 18F FDG, 373 MBq (10.1 mCi)
incidental CT findings (e.g., enlarged but non–18F-FDG-avid
intravenously, via left antecubital vein
lymph nodes; lung abnormalities such as emphysema, pneu-
Blood glucose at time of 18F-FDG injection: 95 mg/dL mothorax, and nonavid lung nodules; vascular abnormalities
(5.3 mmol/L) such as aortic dilation or aneurysm; adrenal nodules; renal
18F-FDG masses or stones; and gallstones). Small pulmonary nodules
Time from injection to scan: 65 min
without visible 18F-FDG uptake should also be mentioned, as
PET/CT images were acquired from the skull base through they may require follow-up. Mentioning prominent physio-
the upper thighs; CT images were acquired at a 5-mm slice logic activity that is still within the range of normal variants
thickness using a low tube current technique and without (e.g., gastrointestinal tract labeling or brown fat uptake)
the use of oral or intravenous contrast agent should be considered.
Anatomic Site. Findings are organized by anatomic region
(e.g., head and neck, chest, abdomen and pelvis, musculo-
Comparison Studies
skeletal), with both PET and CT findings described within
The interpreting physician should compare the current
each anatomic subsection. Some physicians adopt a “struc-
imaging study with prior studies whenever possible. Results
tured” format within each section whereby individual organs
in the literature have shown that comparison with prior
or organ systems are routinely listed, followed by a statement
imaging improves diagnostic accuracy (19,20). Even when
describing the presence or absence of pathology.
the final diagnosis is uncertain, documentation of stability
Hybrid. Some physicians report PET/CT findings using
versus change over time can be helpful to the referring a combination of the order of importance and anatomic site
physician. Comparison should be made with prior PET/
styles. The report is organized by anatomic region (e.g., head
CT studies, but current findings should also be correlated
and neck, chest, abdomen and pelvis, musculoskeletal), with
with findings of other recent imaging studies such as CT,
findings in each section organized by order of importance. Such
MR imaging, or other nuclear medicine studies (e.g., bone
reports have a predictable overall structure and are presented
scanning or radioiodine scanning) when applicable. The
in a clear fashion with compartmentalized information. This
dates of any other imaging studies used for comparison or
format may be preferred by some referring physicians because
correlation should be listed. If no previous imaging studies
it more closely matches reports associated with anatomic
are available, this should be stated. imaging modalities such as CT and MR imaging.
Findings General Guidance of Reporting of Findings. In any
It is important to have a consistent organizational organizational scheme the location, extent, and intensity of
scheme when reporting imaging findings. There are 3 abnormal radiotracer activity should be reported using standard
principal styles of reporting: “order of importance,” “anatomic anatomic descriptors. The use of a standardized radiology
site,” and “hybrid” formats. lexicon (e.g., RadLex in North American English) is encour-
Order of Importance. Findings are described in the order aged (24). Areas of abnormal radiotracer activity should be
of relevance to the clinical care of the patient. In its simplest correlated anatomically with the concurrent CT scan or other
form, such a report may follow the TNM staging classifica- recent anatomic imaging studies.
tion for the type of tumor being evaluated. In other cases, it It is appropriate to provide size measurements for nodules
may begin with the largest or most clinically significant site and masses, either as a single transaxial diameter or in 2 or 3
of disease, followed by additional findings of less immediate orthogonal directions. If a single linear measurement is
importance. Once the most important PET findings (along reported there should be a descriptor indicating whether it
with corresponding anatomic descriptors from the CT portion represents the short or long axis. When PET/CT is used as
of the study) have been reported, there should be a description a follow-up study to anatomic imaging (e.g., CT alone), effort
of significant CT findings that are not 18F-FDG–avid, fol- should be made to compare anatomic information (i.e.,
lowed by incidental findings (on PET or CT) that are unlikely increasing, stable, or decreasing lesion size) in addition to
to have an impact on patient care. reporting the metabolic findings on PET.

ONCOLOGIC PET/CT REPORTING GUIDANCE • Niederkohr et al. 759

 The intensity of 18F-FDG uptake within a lesion may be more than 50% of cases, though this study was limited by
reported using either qualitative (e.g., mild, moderate, or in- several factors including retrospective design (29). Additional
tense) terminology or using semiquantitative measures such imaging studies may be needed to clarify areas of diagnostic
as the SUV. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses. uncertainty on the PET/CT, especially when this is critical for
Use of SUV may be preferable in many situations, as it is patient management. However, such recommendations for ad-
more amenable to interstudy comparison and has prognostic ditional imaging should be issued sparingly because indiscrim-
value in some cancers. However, there are different ways inate additional imaging may lead to unnecessary health care
of calculating and reporting SUV that should be standardized costs, patient anxiety or inconvenience, and potential compli-
(e.g., mean vs. maximum SUV; SUV normalized to true body cations as the result of these additional tests (29,30). It may
weight vs. lean body weight), and interpreting physicians also put referring physicians in a position where they feel
need to be aware of limitations in SUV measurements and medicolegally obligated to order the recommended tests, and
potential sources for error that may adversely affect SUV the recommended tests could also potentially be construed as
accuracy and reproducibility (25–27). Use of qualitative ter- inappropriate self-referral as has been reported by some
minology may avoid these potential pitfalls of SUV, but such authors (30,31). The recommendation for additional imaging
terminology may be interpreted variably from reader to should be tailored to institutional preferences and may depend
reader and the absence of a quantitative parameter may on the level of imaging expertise among both imaging physi-
make interstudy comparison difficult or impossible. cians and referring physicians (28).
Regardless of the aforementioned approaches, we rec- The language used in the impression should be as clear
ommend that abnormal 18F-FDG uptake be compared with and unambiguous as possible. For instance, terms such as
uptake in a normal reference region. For example, abnormal absent, excludes, and definite are clear and can be expected
18F-FDG uptake in a lesion can be characterized by com- to be interpreted similarly by referring physicians and im-
paring it with uptake in normal liver, with “mild” meaning aging physicians. Diagnostic uncertainty can be expressed
less intense than normal liver uptake, “moderate” meaning using terms such as probably benign or probably malignant;
similar in intensity to normal liver uptake, and “intense” however, such terms may have different probabilistic mean-
meaning substantially higher than normal liver uptake. Le- ings to different people, which may lead to misunderstanding
sion SUV can also be compared with SUV within a refer- among physicians and patients (32). Therefor, if these terms
ence region of interest in the liver or mediastinal blood-pool are used, their meaning should be explained to referring
activity. physicians. The term equivocal or indeterminate should be
reserved for scenarios in which a likelihood of malignancy
Impression truly cannot be reliably ascribed.
The impression is probably the most important section of There is an increasing emphasis on the standardization of
an imaging report. Many referring physicians begin their reporting with respect to assessment of treatment response.
reading of the report with the impression, and they read the Current best practices in reporting emphasize consistency
findings section only as time allows. It is essential that all in communication so that clinical decisions can be made
important information is presented in the impression in a on the basis of imaging results. In clinical reports, the
clear and succinct way. The impression section should be language of response assessment (e.g., complete response,
a brief and concise interpretation of findings, not simply partial response, stable disease, or progressive disease) is
a restatement of findings. Lengthy discussion should be derived from the World Health Organization criteria and
avoided in the impression. RECIST criteria, which were developed for trial-based imag-
The impression should allow the reader to clearly identify ing using anatomic imaging modalities (33,34). To capture
whether the PET/CT findings are normal or abnormal, and the full breadth of information in a PET/CT scan, future
it should answer the specific clinical questions raised by the iterations of response assessment criteria will need to incor-
referring physician. The impression should provide a clear porate parameters in addition to size, including intensity of
diagnosis or a brief list of differential diagnoses with level of uptake and possibly volumetric metabolic data. Several pro-
likelihood. For follow-up scans after therapy, both the meta- posals for characterizing metabolic response have been put
bolic response and anatomic response may be reported in the forward, including the Cheson and Deauville/London criteria
impression, particularly if these responses are discordant. (specific to lymphoma) and PERCIST (35–39,40,41).
Some imaging physicians recommend additional imaging Although the proposed criteria for metabolic response
studies, tissue sampling, or follow-up for specific findings in have many potential advantages, there are several issues
the impression section. A 2009 study found that the frequency that currently limit widespread use of these metrics in clinical
of recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports. First, many of these metrics have not been rigorously
reports has nearly doubled since 1995 (28), and a 2013 study validated in clinical outcome studies. Second, some of these
found that recommendations for additional imaging were metrics are disease-specific (e.g., Deauville/London and Che-
found in 29.6% of oncologic PET/CT reports (29). The latter son criteria for lymphoma), precluding application to other
study reported no adverse impact on patient management or tumor types. Third, criteria that classify metabolic response
outcome by not issuing or following these recommendations in based on percent changes in SUV or other metrics are

760 THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE • Vol. 54 • No. 5 • May 2013

applicable only if baseline and follow-up studies are performed 14. Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor
imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885–895.
under nearly identical conditions. For this, the image acquisi- 15. ACR-SPR practice guideline for performing FDG-PET/CT in oncology. Amer-
tion protocol and means of image analysis need to be ican College of Radiology Web site. http://www.acr.org/;/media/ACR/Docu-
standardized and consistent. Finally, these schemes are con- ments/PGTS/guidelines/FDG_PET_CT.pdf. Published 2009. Updated 2012.
Accessed March 29, 2013.
stantly evolving and the optimal criteria may change over time. 16. Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM
Currently, there is no consistent recommendation to incorporate procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol
any one metabolic response framework into clinical reports. Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.
17. ACR practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. American
We recommend that imaging physicians collaborate with their College of Radiology Web site. http://www.acr.org/;/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/
local oncologic colleagues to reach agreement regarding guidelines/Comm_Diag_Imaging.pdf. Revised 2010. Accessed March 29, 2013.
institutional reporting preferences that may or may not include 18. The SNM procedure guideline for general imaging, version 6.0. Society of Nuclear
Medicine and Molecular Imaging Web site. http://interactive.snm.org/docs/General_
these aforementioned metrics in routine clinical reports.
Imaging_Version_6.0.pdf. Revised 2010. Accessed March 29, 2013.
Urgent or emergent findings (e.g., pneumothorax, impend- 19. Berlin L. Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five
ing pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or in- decades? AJR. 2007;188:1173–1178.
20. Doubilet P, Herman P. Interpretation of radiographs: effect of clinical history.
tracranial hemorrhage) should be communicated rapidly to
AJR. 1981;137:1055–1058.
referring physicians or their surrogate, and the date, time, and 21. Leslie A, Jones A, Goddard P. The influence of clinical information on the
means of communication should be documented at the end of reporting of CT by radiologists. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:1052–1055.
22. Loy CT, Irwig L. Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical
the imaging report (e.g., “Dr. X discussed these results with
information: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1602–1609.
Dr. Y by telephone on October 10, 2012, at 3:35 PM.”) 23. Medicare national coverage determinations manual. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid
Finally, imaging physicians should be aware that referring Services Web site. http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/
physicians at many institutions now make the reports of downloads/ncd103c1_part4.pdf. Published March 8, 2013. Accessed March 29, 2013.
24. What is RadLex? Radiological Society of North America Web site. http://rsna.
imaging studies directly available to patients. This is an org/RadLex.aspx. Accessed March 29, 2013.
additional incentive to avoid emotional terminology (e.g., 25. Lindholm H, Johansson O, Jonsson C, Jacobsson H. The distribution of FDG at
dramatic increase or too numerous to count), which is gen- PET examinations constitutes a relative mechanism: significant effects at activity
quantification in patients with a high muscular uptake. Eur J Nucl Med Mol
erally unhelpful and might provoke unnecessary patient Imaging. 2012;39:1685–1690.
anxiety. 26. Teo BK, Badiee S, Hadi M, et al. Correcting tumour SUV for enhanced bone
marrow uptake: retrospective 18F-FDG PET/CT studies. Nucl Med Commun.
CONCLUSION 2008;29:359–366.
27. Osman MM, Muzaffar R, Altinyay ME, Teymouri C. FDG dose extravasations in
The interpretative report rendered by an imaging physi- PET/CT: frequency and impact on SUV measurements. Frontiers Oncol. 2001;1:1–6.
28. Sistrom CL, Dreyer KJ, Dang PP, et al. Recommendations for additional imaging
cian is the only tangible manifestation of the physician’s
in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radi-
expertise (3). The content of this report not only influences ology. 2009;253:453–461.
patient management and clinical outcomes but also serves 29. Shinagare AB, Shyn P, Sadowa C, Wasser E, Catalano P. Incidence, appropri-
as legal documentation of services provided. To ensure that ateness, and consequences of recommendations for additional imaging tests in
oncological PET/CT reports. Clin Radiol. 2013;68:155–161.
PET/CT reports are consistently of high quality, we suggest 30. Ginsberg LE. “If clinically indicated:” is it? Radiology. 2010;254:324–325.
that institutions standardize the structure and language of 31. Arenson RL. Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: radiol-
their reports, taking into consideration the essential ele- ogists’ self-referral or good clinical practice? Radiology. 2009;253:291–292.
32. Kong A, Barnett G, Mosteller F, Youtz C. How medical professionals evaluate
ments discussed in this paper. expressions of probability. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:740–744.
33. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation cri-
REFERENCES teria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer.
2009;45:228–247.
1. Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and
34. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer
clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR. 2001;176:591–598.
treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207–214.
2. Thorwarth WT. Get paid for what you do: dictation patterns and impact on
35. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST:
billing accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2:665–669. evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med.
3. Sistrom CL, Langlotz CP. A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am 2009;50(suppl 1):122S–150S.
Coll Radiol. 2005;2:159–167. 36. Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ, et al. Concordance between four European
4. 2011 PET Imaging Market Summary Report. Greenbelt, MD: IMV; 2011. centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin
5. Coleman RE, Hillner BE, Shields AF, et al. PET and PET/CT reports: observa- lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1824–1833.
tions from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:158–163. 37. Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the First International Workshop
6. Sistrom C, Lanier L, Mancuso A. Reporting instruction for radiology residents. on interim PET scan in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257–1260.
Acad Radiol. 2004;11:76–84. 38. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant
7. Berlin L. The incidentaloma: a medicolegal dilemma. Radiol Clin North Am. lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–586.
2011;49:245–255. 39. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Use of positron emission tomography
8. Berlin L. Mock trial at 2009 RSNA annual meeting: jury exonerates radiologist for for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of
failure to communicate abnormal finding—but. . . Radiology. 2010;257:836–845. International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571–578.
9. Berlin L. Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. AJR. 2000;174:1511–1518. 40. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for
10. Brenner RJ, Bartholomew L. Communication errors in radiology: a liability cost the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in
analysis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2:428–431. National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059–1066.
11. Halpin SF. Medico-legal claims against English radiologists: 1995-2006. Br J 41. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical
Radiol. 2009;82:982–988. tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomog-
12. Thibierge M, Fournier L, Cabanis E. Principles of medical liability and practice raphy: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for
in medical imaging. J Radiol. 1999;80:701–707. Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer.
13. Berlin L. Liability for typographical errors. AJR. 2011;196:W215. 1999;35:1773–1782.

ONCOLOGIC PET/CT REPORTING GUIDANCE • Niederkohr et al. 761