This study aimed to analyze the compliance of health care institutions with the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) procedure guidelines for gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES). Methods: A 19-question survey on demographics and the GES protocol was conducted using a Google form. The demographic questions covered position, number of technologists in the department, location, type of health care institution, and number of GES studies per month. The protocol questions included patient preparation, meal preparation, withholding of scheduled medications, radiopharmaceutical type, and radiopharmaceutical dose. The survey was sent to 7 nuclear medicine Facebook groups and a list of clinical affiliates provided by the Indiana University School of Medicine Nuclear Medicine Program. Descriptive statistics were compiled for most questions. A Fisher exact test with a significance level of 0.05 was used to compare the type of health care institution with compliance with the SNMMI GES protocol regarding radiolabeling time, meal preparation, and meal components, as well as to compare the type of health care institution with the number of GES studies performed per institution. Results: In total, 240 people responded to the survey. Most were nonsupervisory nuclear medicine technologists (72%) in nonacademic institutions (72%) and groups with 4 or more technologists (62%). Of the respondents, 72% followed the SNMMI guideline of adding the radiopharmaceutical before cooking, but only 37% followed the meal component guideline. There was no significant association between the type of institution or the number of GES studies and compliance with radiolabeling time or with meal preparation or components. Most respondents asked patients to withhold medications per SNMMI guidelines and used the recommended radiopharmaceutical (99mTc-sulfur colloid, 95%) at the recommended dose (18.5-37 MBq, 84%). Conclusion: Although most respondents followed most aspects of the SNMMI guidelines for GES, more than half did not use the recommended meal of liquid egg whites. Compliance did not vary between academic and nonacademic institutions or between groups performing a large or a small number of GES studies.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications.
We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa.
The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting.
Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores.
After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy.
There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community.
There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.

暂无摘要。

Molecular imaging better identifies anatomic regions of metastatic spread of prostate cancer compared with conventional imaging, resulting in para-aortic (PA) nodal metastases being increasingly identified. Consequently, some radiation oncologists electively treat the PA lymph node region in patients with gross or high risk of PA nodal involvement. The anatomic locations of at-risk PA lymph nodes for prostate cancer are unknown. Our objective was to use molecular imaging to develop guidelines for the optimal delineation of the PA clinical target volume (CTV) in patients with prostate cancer.
We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of patients with prostate cancer undergoing 18F-fluciclovine or 18F-DCFPyL prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT). Images of patients with PET-positive PA nodes were imported into the treatment planning system, avid nodes were contoured, and measurements were taken in relation to anatomic landmarks. A contouring guideline that encompassed the location of ≥95% of PET-positive PA nodes was created using descriptive statistics and then validated in an independent data set.
Five hundred fifty-nine patients had molecular PET/CT imaging in the development data set (78% 18F-fluciclovine, 22% prostate-specific membrane antigen). Seventy-six patients (14%) had evidence of PA nodal metastasis. We determined that expanding the CTV to 1.8 cm left of the aorta, 1.4 cm right of the inferior vena cava (IVC), 7 mm posterior to the aorta/IVC or to the vertebral body, and superiorly to the T11/T12 vertebral interface, with the anterior border 4 mm anterior to the aorta/IVC and inferior border at the bifurcation of the aorta/IVC, resulted in coverage of ≥95% of PET-positive PA nodes. When the guideline was used in the independent validation data set (246 patients with molecular PET/CT imaging, of whom 31 had PA nodal metastasis), 97% of nodes were encompassed, thereby validating our guideline.
We used molecular PET/CT imaging to determine the anatomic locations of PA metastases to develop contouring guidelines for creating a prostate cancer PA CTV. Although the optimal patient selection and clinical benefits of PA radiation therapy remain uncertain, our results will aid in delineating the optimal target when PA radiation therapy is pursued.

Given the paucity of high-certainty evidence, and differences in opinion on the use of nuclear medicine for hematological malignancies, we embarked on a consensus process involving key experts in this area. We aimed to assess consensus within a panel of experts on issues related to patient eligibility, imaging techniques, staging and response assessment, follow-up, and treatment decision-making, and to provide interim guidance by our expert consensus. We used a three-stage consensus process. First, we systematically reviewed and appraised the quality of existing evidence. Second, we generated a list of 153 statements based on the literature review to be agreed or disagreed with, with an additional statement added after the first round. Third, the 154 statements were scored by a panel of 26 experts purposively sampled from authors of published research on haematological tumours on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) Likert scale in a two-round electronic Delphi review. The RAND and University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method was used for analysis. Between one and 14 systematic reviews were identified on each topic. All were rated as low to moderate quality. After two rounds of voting, there was consensus on 139 (90%) of 154 of the statements. There was consensus on most statements concerning the use of PET in non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. In multiple myeloma, more studies are required to define the optimal sequence for treatment assessment. Furthermore, nuclear medicine physicians and haematologists are awaiting consistent literature to introduce volumetric parameters, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and radiomics into routine practice.

In the past decade, the implementation of immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has determined a major change in the management of oncological patients. The challenges associated to the new therapeutic regimen have promoted adapted criteria for response assessment to interpret imaging findings and atypical patterns of response. Parallel to the new morphological criteria, also 18fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission/computed tomography imaging has required novel approaches and specific guidelines on how to perform, interpret, and report the scan in patients with solid tumors under immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy. A summary of the novelties related to the new joint international European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)/Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI)/Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine (ANZSNM) guidelines on immunotherapy is provided herein to elucidate most critical aspects in image interpretation.

In nuclear medicine, theranostics is a burgeoning development that is rapidly being implemented worldwide. There is an increasing need to provide a multidisciplinary framework to the practice of theranostics, ensuring that patients receive this treatment safely and are secure in the knowledge that their health-care practitioners are adequately trained. Nuclear medicine experts in Australia have taken the initiative of producing a set of theranostic guidelines relevant to Australian medical practice. These guidelines encompass specialist qualifications, patient care, radiopharmaceutical production, radiation safety, and dosimetry. We propose adaptation of these guidelines by other countries, and we promote standards of practice leading to optimal clinical outcomes for patients receiving theranostic treatments.

The goal of this guideline/procedure standard is to assist nuclear medicine physicians, other nuclear medicine professionals, oncologists or other medical specialists for recommended use of [18F]FDG PET/CT in oncological patients undergoing immunotherapy, with special focus on response assessment in solid tumors.
In a cooperative effort between the EANM, the SNMMI and the ANZSNM, clinical indications, recommended imaging procedures and reporting standards have been agreed upon and summarized in this joint guideline/procedure standard.
The field of immuno-oncology is rapidly evolving, and this guideline/procedure standard should not be seen as definitive, but rather as a guidance document standardizing the use and interpretation of [18F]FDG PET/CT during immunotherapy. Local variations to this guideline should be taken into consideration.
The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) is a professional non-profit medical association founded in 1985 to facilitate worldwide communication among individuals pursuing clinical and academic excellence in nuclear medicine. The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) is an international scientific and professional organization founded in 1954 to promote science, technology and practical application of nuclear medicine. The Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine (ANZSNM), founded in 1969, represents the major professional society fostering the technical and professional development of nuclear medicine practice across Australia and New Zealand. It promotes excellence in the nuclear medicine profession through education, research and a commitment to the highest professional standards. EANM, SNMMI and ANZSNM members are physicians, technologists, physicists and scientists specialized in the research and clinical practice of nuclear medicine. All three societies will periodically put forth new standards/guidelines for nuclear medicine practice to help advance the science of nuclear medicine and improve service to patients. Existing standards/guidelines will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner, if indicated. Each standard/guideline, representing a policy statement by the EANM/SNMMI/ANZSNM, has undergone a thorough consensus process, entailing extensive review. These societies recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic nuclear medicine imaging requires particular training and skills, as described in each document. These standards/guidelines are educational tools designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate and effective nuclear medicine care for patients. These guidelines are consensus documents based on current knowledge. They are not intended to be inflexible rules or requirements of practice, nor should they be used to establish a legal standard of care. For these reasons and those set forth below, the EANM, SNMMI and ANZSNM caution against the use of these standards/guidelines in litigation in which the clinical decisions of a practitioner are called into question. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure or course of action must be made by medical professionals considering the unique circumstances of each case. Thus, there is no implication that an action differing from what is laid out in the guidelines/procedure standards, standing alone, is below standard of care. To the contrary, a conscientious practitioner may responsibly adopt a course of action different from that set forth in the standards/guidelines when, in the reasonable judgment of the practitioner, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources or advances in knowledge or technology subsequent to publication of the guidelines/procedure standards. The practice of medicine involves not only the science, but also the art of dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation and treatment of disease. The variety and complexity of human conditions make it impossible for general guidelines to consistently allow for an accurate diagnosis to be reached or a particular treatment response to be predicted. Therefore, it should be recognized that adherence to these standards/ guidelines will not ensure a successful outcome. All that should be expected is that practitioners follow a reasonable course of action, based on their level of training, current knowledge, clinical practice guidelines, available resources and the needs/context of the patient being treated. The sole purpose of these guidelines is to assist practitioners in achieving this objective. The present guideline/procedure standard was developed collaboratively by the EANM, the SNMMI and the ANZSNM, with the support of international experts in the field. They summarize also the views of the Oncology and Theranostics and the Inflammation and Infection Committees of the EANM, as well as the procedure standards committee of the SNMMI, and reflect recommendations for which the EANM and SNMMI cannot be held responsible. The recommendations should be taken into the context of good practice of nuclear medicine and do not substitute for national and international legal or regulatory provisions.