Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
OtherDepartments

Comments and Perspectives. Clinical PET/CT: A Win or a Loss for Nuclear Medicine?

James W. Fletcher
Journal of Nuclear Medicine March 2005, 46 (3) 385;
James W. Fletcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figure

PET/CT dual-modality imaging is here to stay. There can be no question of that. Almost 3 of 4 new units sold today are PET/CT hardware fusion units. Clinical PET performed with 18F-FDG has been the domain primarily of nuclear medicine since clinical units first became commercially available in the early 1990s, and PET technology has been developed almost exclusively by professionals in the field of nuclear medicine.

Rapid improvements in PET technology have occurred in the last 5 years, including the introduction of commercially manufactured dual-modality PET/CT devices. The advantages of PET/CT units over dedicated PET units are inherent in the marriage of 2 modalities capable of providing the ideal combination of structural and metabolic information. These advantages and associated improvements in the ability to localize and characterize disease have now been embraced by a far larger medical community than just nuclear medicine. With this movement is the likely potential that at least some members of the nuclear medicine community—physician professionals—will be left in the dust. The reason is obvious and simple.

Just as PET/CT has begun largely to replace dedicated PET, PET/CT with the incorporation of diagnostic CT scans that use oral and intravenous contrast material and have a higher effective amperage will begin to replace single-modality CT. Because many nuclear medicine physicians have not received the training or obtained enough experience to be proficient in CT cross-sectional anatomy, many are currently not able to professionally interpret the CT component of PET/CT. As long as PET/CT dual-modality imaging remained in the introductory mode that used the CT component for just attenuation correction and localization of 18F-FDG PET abnormalities, diagnostic-quality CT scans were not generated and a formal interpretation of the CT information was not required. Given this circumstance and one similar but opposite for a radiologist who is not proficient in PET, some have proposed that the PET and CT components be interpreted and reported separately by physician professionals who are qualified to do so. Over the long run, this solution will not be viable.

To ensure that the patients who are examined with PET/CT receive the best possible care, the physician professionals interpreting these clinical studies will need to be proficient in both PET and CT. At the highest level of integration, these physician professional will evaluate and report on both the diagnostic-quality CT image data and the PET image data. This can be achieved only by professionals who are trained and experienced in both modalities. Unfortunately, current independent pathways for graduate medical education (GME) in nuclear medicine and radiology do not provide adequate training or experience to achieve this level of proficiency. Without such a curriculum, there can be no win/win scenario for either the patient or the professional communities.

The remedy requires changes on 2 levels. On the GME level, programs must be of a length and scope sufficient for the resident to receive education and training in both cross-sectional imaging and PET. On the clinical practice level, continuing medical education (CME) and experience must be of a magnitude and mix sufficient for the practitioner to become proficient and confident in the evaluation, interpretation, and integration of both modalities. For residents, the level of training and experience that programs currently provide will need to be evaluated and adjusted to meet the newly defined requirements for education in both PET and CT. For practicing clinicians, the involved professional communities will need to agree on, define, and establish pathways for CME and clinical experience, and these pathways will need to provide credentials that are recognized and satisfactory for clinical privileges in PET/CT.

These processes are in motion and the pathways are being laid. This will certainly be a win for nuclear medicine… and for the patient.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 46 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 46, Issue 3
March 1, 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comments and Perspectives. Clinical PET/CT: A Win or a Loss for Nuclear Medicine?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Comments and Perspectives. Clinical PET/CT: A Win or a Loss for Nuclear Medicine?
James W. Fletcher
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2005, 46 (3) 385;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comments and Perspectives. Clinical PET/CT: A Win or a Loss for Nuclear Medicine?
James W. Fletcher
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Mar 2005, 46 (3) 385;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Recruitment
  • Recruitment
  • Recruitment
Show more Departments

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire