[Structured reporting in oncologic hybrid imaging: a consensus recommendation].

Since the clinical introduction of PET/CT in the year of 2001 and PET/MRI in the year of 2010, hybrid imaging-guided precision medicine has become an important component of diagnostic algorithms in oncology. The written report represents the primary mode of communication between the referring physician and both the nuclear medicine physician and the radiologist. Reports have considerable impact on patient management and patient outcome, and serve as a legal documentation of the services provided and the expert impression of the interpreting physician. A high-quality hybrid imaging study should result in a likewise high-quality, structured written report which satisfactorily answers the clinical question of the referring physician. In this manuscript, consensus recommendations for structure and content of oncologic hybrid imaging reports and conclusive impressions are provided. Moreover, exemplary structured reports are provided. The recommendations for structured reporting provided in this document should foster further standardization and harmonization of oncologic reports in the context of hybrid imaging. They should also simplify communication with referring physicians and support both acceptance and appreciation of the clinical value of oncologic hybrid imaging. CITATION FORMAT: · Derlin T, Gatidis S, Krause BJ et al. Konsensusempfehlung zur strukturierten Befunderstellung onkologischer PET-Hybridbildgebung. Nuklearmedizin DOI:10.1055/a-1176-0275.

[1]  T. Beyer,et al.  PET/MRI versus PET/CT in oncology: a prospective single-center study of 330 examinations focusing on implications for patient management and cost considerations , 2019, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[2]  T. Beyer,et al.  State of affairs of hybrid imaging in Europe: two multi-national surveys from 2017 , 2019, Insights into Imaging.

[3]  Konstantin Nikolaou,et al.  Whole-Body [18F]-FDG-PET/MRI for Oncology: A Consensus Recommendation , 2019, Nuklearmedizin.

[4]  T. Beyer,et al.  An International Survey on Clinical Reporting of PET/CT Examinations: A Starting Point for Cross-Specialty Engagement , 2018, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  W. Vach,et al.  Practice-based evidence for the clinical benefit of PET/CT—results of the first oncologic PET/CT registry in Germany , 2018, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[6]  T. Beyer,et al.  An international survey on hybrid imaging: do technology advances preempt our training and education efforts? , 2018, Cancer Imaging.

[7]  T. Derlin,et al.  Molecular Imaging in Oncology Using Positron Emission Tomography. , 2018, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[8]  T. Beyer,et al.  Life is not black and white, nor just Shades of Gray , 2018, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[9]  Frederik L. Giesel,et al.  Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE): Proposed miTNM Classification for the Interpretation of PSMA-Ligand PET/CT , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[11]  Bruce D Cheson,et al.  Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  John O. Prior,et al.  Reporting Guidance for Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Repeatability of 18F-FDG Uptake Measurements in Tumors: A Metaanalysis , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  T. Beyer,et al.  Variations in Clinical PET/CT Operations: Results of an International Survey of Active PET/CT Users , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  J. Radford,et al.  Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[16]  R. Coleman,et al.  PET and PET/CT Reports: Observations from the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2010, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  R. Wahl,et al.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[18]  R. Coleman,et al.  Relationship Between Cancer Type and Impact of PET and PET/CT on Intended Management: Findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[19]  Barry A Siegel,et al.  Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  I. Carrió EANM-ESR white paper on multimodality imaging , 2008, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[21]  M. Reiser,et al.  White paper of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) on multimodality imaging , 2007, European Radiology.

[22]  M. Reiser,et al.  White paper of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) and the European Society of Radiology (ESR) on multimodality imaging , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[23]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.