2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Limitations of CT during PET/CT.

      Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine
      Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Image Enhancement, methods, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, diagnosis, Observer Variation, Positron-Emission Tomography, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Subtraction Technique, Tomography, X-Ray Computed

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Our aim was to determine the diagnostic limitations of low-dose, unenhanced CT scans performed for anatomic reference and attenuation correction during PET/CT. The Radiology Information System at our oncologic hospital was queried during the 9-mo period from July 2002 to April 2003 for patients with PET/CT scans and diagnostic enhanced CT within 2 wk of each other. One radiologist interpreted the CT portion of the PET/CT (CT(p)) unaware of the PET results and the associated enhanced diagnostic CT (CT(d)). A medical student compared this interpretation with the official report of the CT(d) and listed all discrepancies between reports. A separate radiologist compared CT(p) and CT(d) images and classified true discrepant findings as due to lack of intravenous contrast, arm-position artifact, lack of enteric contrast, low milliamperage (mA), and quality of lung images. Among 100 patients, the most common malignancies were lymphoma (n = 37), cancer of the colorectum (n = 31), and esophageal cancer (n = 15). Among 194 true discrepancies in which findings were missed at CT(p), causes were as follows: (a) lack of intravenous contrast (128/194, 66%), (b) arm-down artifact (17/194, 9%), (c) quality of lung images (26/194, 13%), (d) lack of enteric contrast (15/194, 8%), and (e) low mA (8/194, 4%). Discrepancies were seen most commonly in detecting lymphadenopathy and visceral metastases. Most missed findings on the unenhanced CT portion of the PET/CT scans were due to technical factors that could be altered. Discrepant findings would have led to altered management in only 2 patients, suggesting a role for limited repeat imaging to reduce radiation and use of valuable resources.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article