PET and PET/CT Reports: Observations from the National Oncologic PET Registry
PET and PET/CT Reports: Observations from the National Oncologic PET Registry
复制标题
DOI：
10.2967/jnumed.109.066399
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
9.3
通讯作者：
Siegel, Barry A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Coleman, R. Edward;Hillner, Bruce E.;Siegel, Barry A.
我们的目标是确定纳入肿瘤PET报告的核心要素，并评估国家肿瘤PET登记数据库中的报告样本。方法：根据美国放射学会和核医学学会指南编制了PET报告中的理想元素列表。由4名医生组成的小组对20份随机选择的报告进行了评估，并将结果用于制定评估报告内容和质量的共识方法。然后，每位评审员对65份随机选择的报告进行评分，其中20份是所有评审员共有的。将评分制成表格，并测量常见病例的评分者间变异性。结果：每份报告评估了34个要素-21个主要问题和11个与这些主要要素中的6个相关的附加问题。在常见的情况下，有34个元素的30强（>= 0.70）评分员间的协议。在独特的情况下，只有9个元素被包括在90%以上的报告。超过40%的报告未包括几个重要元素：研究原因、治疗史描述、与其他成像比较的声明以及从放射性药物注射到成像的时间。结论：肿瘤PET报告中应包含的基本要素在许多报告中缺失。这些缺陷可能使报告对转诊医生的帮助较小，可能导致误诊，并可能导致编码和计费错误。口译医师应审核其报告，以确定报告中包含了合规计费和与转诊医师进行有效沟通所需的适当要素。
Our objective was to identify core elements for inclusion in oncologic PET reports and to evaluate a sample of reports in the National Oncologic PET Registry database. Methods: A list of desirable elements in PET reports was compiled from American College of Radiology and Society of Nuclear Medicine guidelines. A training set of 20 randomly selected reports was evaluated by the 4-physician panel, and the results were used to formulate a consensus approach for assessing report content and quality. Each reviewer then scored 65 randomly selected reports-20 common to all reviewers. The scores were tabulated, and interrater variability was measured for the common cases. Results: Each report was assessed for 34 elements-21 primary and 11 additional questions related to 6 of these primary elements. Among the common cases, there was strong (>= 0.70) interrater agreement for 30 of 34 elements. Among the unique cases, only 9 elements were included in more than 90% of the reports. Several important elements were not included in more than 40% of the reports: the reason for the study, a description of treatment history, a statement about comparison to other imaging, and time from radiopharmaceutical injection to imaging. Conclusion: Essential elements that should be included in oncologic PET reports were missing from many reports. These deficiencies may render the reports less helpful to referring physicians, may lead to misdiagnoses, and may cause coding and billing errors. Interpreting physicians should audit their reports to ascertain that they include appropriate elements necessary for billing compliance and for effective communications with referring physicians.