Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: Referring physicians' point of view

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 53, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 1499-1505

  Karantanis, Dimitrios ^a,b   Kalkanis, Dimitrios ^b   Allen Auerbach, Martin ^a   Bogsrud, Trond Velde ^c   Subramaniam, Rathan M ^d,e   Danielson, Adam ^a   Lowe, Val J ^f   Czernin, Johannes ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Department of Nuclear Medicine   (Greece)

^c OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

FDG PET CT; Indications; Oncology; Problems; Survey

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; JOB SATISFACTION; PATIENT REFERRAL; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SKILL RETENTION; SPECIALIZATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; NEOPLASM; PHYSICIAN; RESEARCH; SCINTISCANNING; STATISTICS;

COMMUNICATION; DATA COLLECTION; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; NEOPLASMS; PHYSICIANS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 84867045198     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.111.102228     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Beyer T, Czernin J, Freudenberg LS. Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:303-310.
2. Graham MM, Badawi RD, Wahl RL. Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers: an imaging response assessment team survey. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:311-317.
3. Bennett C, Khangura S, Brehaut JC, et al. Reporting guidelines for survey research: an analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Med. 2010;8:e1001069.
4. Gundgaard J, Ekholm O, Hansen EH, Rasmussen NK. The effect of non-response on estimates of health care utilisation: linking health surveys and registers. Eur J Public Health. 2008;18:189-194. (Pubitemid 351398377)
5. Smith B, Smith TC, Gray GC, Ryan MA. When epidemiology meets the Internet: Web-based surveys in the Millennium Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1345-1354. (Pubitemid 350129419)
6. Russell CW, Boggs DA, Palmer JR, Rosenberg L. Use of a web-based questionnaire in the Black Women's Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1286-1291.
7. Truell AD, Bartlett JE II, Alexander MW. Response rate, speed, and completeness: a comparison of Internet-based and mail surveys. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2002;34:46-49.
8. Kongsved SM, Basnov M, Holm-Christensen K, Hjollund NH. Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9:e25.
9. Basnov M, Kongsved SM, Bech P, Hjollund NH. Reliability of short form-36 in an Internet- and a pen-and-paper version. Inform Health Soc Care. 2009;34:53-58.
10. van Gelder MM, Bretveld RW, Roeleveld N. Web-based questionnaires: the future in epidemiology? Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1292-1298.
11. Manning K, Tepfer B, Goldklang G, Loyd R, Garimella P, Halkar R. Clinical practice guidelines for the utilization of positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in selected oncologic applications: suggestions from a provider group. Mol Imaging Biol. 2007;9:324-332.
12. Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 1999;19:61-77.
13. Gorospe L, Raman S, Echeveste J, Avril N, Herrero Y, Herna Ndez S. Whole-body PET/CT: spectrum of physiological variants, artifacts and interpretative pitfalls in cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun. 2005;26:671-687. (Pubitemid 41073368)
14. 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT: characterization and incidence. AJR. 2007;189:1203-1210.
15. Coleman RE, Hillner BE, Shields AF, et al. PET and PET/CT reports: observations from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:158-163.
16. 18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in oncological imaging. Clin Radiol. 2011;66:366-382.
17. Manfreda KL, Bosnjak M, Berzelak J, Haas I, Vehovar V. Web surveys versus other survey modes: a meta-analysis comparing response rates. Int J Market Res. 2008;50:79-104.
18. Shih T, Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Methods. 2008;20:249-271.