OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of expert recommendations and guidelines for clinical indications and procedurals in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.
METHODS: From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.
RESULTS: A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.

暂无摘要。

In this EACVI clinical scientific update, we will explore the current use of multi-modality imaging in the diagnosis, risk stratification, and follow-up of patients with aortic stenosis, with a particular focus on recent developments and future directions. Echocardiography is and will likely remain the key method of diagnosis and surveillance of aortic stenosis providing detailed assessments of valve haemodynamics and the cardiac remodelling response. Computed tomography (CT) is already widely used in the planning of transcutaneous aortic valve implantation. We anticipate its increased use as an anatomical adjudicator to clarify disease severity in patients with discordant echocardiographic measurements. CT calcium scoring is currently used for this purpose; however, contrast CT techniques are emerging that allow identification of both calcific and fibrotic valve thickening. Additionally, improved assessments of myocardial decompensation with echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and CT will become more commonplace in our routine assessment of aortic stenosis. Underpinning all of this will be widespread application of artificial intelligence. In combination, we believe this new era of multi-modality imaging in aortic stenosis will improve the diagnosis, follow-up, and timing of intervention in aortic stenosis as well as potentially accelerate the development of the novel pharmacological treatments required for this disease.

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.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive primary malignancy of the pleura that presents unique radiologic challenges with regard to accurate and reproducible assessment of disease extent at staging and follow-up imaging. By optimizing and harmonizing technical approaches to imaging MPM, the best quality imaging can be achieved for individual patient care, clinical trials, and imaging research. This consensus statement represents agreement on harmonized, standard practices for routine multimodality imaging of MPM, including radiography, computed tomography, 18F-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, by an international panel of experts in the field of pleural imaging assembled by the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. In addition, modality-specific technical considerations and future directions are discussed. A bulleted summary of all technical recommendations is provided.

Response assessment in the context of immunomodulatory treatments represents a major challenge for the medical imaging community and requires a multidisciplinary approach with involvement of oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists. There is evolving evidence that [18F]FDG PET/CT is a useful diagnostic modality for this purpose. The clinical indications for, and the principal aspects of its standardization in this context have been detailed in the recently published \"Joint EANM/SNMMI/ANZSNM practice guidelines/procedure standards on recommended use of [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging during immunomodulatory treatments in patients with solid tumors version 1.0\". These recommendations arose from a fruitful collaboration between international nuclear medicine societies and experts in cancer treatment. In this perspective, the key elements of the initiative are reported, summarizing the core aspects of the guidelines for radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians. Beyond the previous guidelines, this perspective adds further commentary on how this technology can advance development of novel therapeutic approaches and guide management of individual patients.

Treatment monitoring in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relies on imaging to evaluate the tumour burden. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors provide a framework on reporting and interpretation of imaging findings yet offer no guidance on a standardised imaging protocol tailored to patients with mCRC. Imaging protocol heterogeneity remains a challenge for the reproducibility of conventional imaging end-points and is an obstacle for research on novel imaging end-points.
Acknowledging the recently highlighted potential of radiomics and artificial intelligence tools as decision support for patient care in mCRC, a multidisciplinary, international and expert panel of imaging specialists was formed to find consensus on mCRC imaging protocols using the Delphi method.
Under the guidance of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging and Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Groups, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), the EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR core imaging protocol was identified.
This consensus protocol attempts to promote standardisation and to diminish variations in patient preparation, scan acquisition and scan reconstruction. We anticipate that this standardisation will increase reproducibility of radiomics and artificial intelligence studies and serve as a catalyst for future research on imaging end-points. For ongoing and future mCRC trials, we encourage principal investigators to support the dissemination of these imaging standards across recruiting centres.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is useful for selected clinical indications in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) but it may have broader clinical utility owing to the emergence of lutetium-177-PSMA-617 ([177Lu]Lu-PSMA) therapy. However, robust data regarding the impact of PSMA PET/CT on patient management and treatment are lacking, and in many areas, the role of next-generation imaging has not been defined.
To assess expert opinion on the use of PSMA-based imaging and therapy to develop interim guidance.
A panel of 21 PCa experts from various disciplines received thematic topics and relevant literature. A questionnaire to assess proposed guidance statements regarding PSMA PET/CT and [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy was developed for completion remotely in a first e-Delphi round. A subsequent panel discussion was conducted during a 1-d meeting, which included a second Delphi round.
Panellists voted anonymously on statements using a nine-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree. Median scores were calculated and consensus was assessed using methods proposed by the Research and Development (RAND) corporation.
Statements were developed to cover the following topics: PSMA PET/CT utility, clinical use, and choice of tracer; patient selection; and management of patients receiving [177Lu]Lu-PSMA for metastatic PCa. Consensus was reached for 33/36 statements. In-group bias is a potential limitation, as some statements were rephrased during discussions at the 1-d meeting.
Adoption of PSMA PET/CT as an imaging tool to guide [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy should be supported by indications for appropriate use.
A panel of experts in prostate cancer reached a consensus for the majority of statements proposed regarding the role of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based imaging and therapy, particularly the use of PSMA-based imaging in patients suitable for [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy and the need to perform PSMA-based imaging before considering patients as candidates for this therapy.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To examine to what degree guidelines for PET and PET/CT used systematic review evidence.
METHODS: The latest version of guidelines for PET, PET/CT or PET/MRI published in English in PubMed until December 2019 was analysed in two categories: (1) for indications, if mainly discussing the appropriate use of PET in diverse conditions; (2) for procedures, if providing step-by-step instructions for imaging. We surveyed the general characteristics and the use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations across all guidelines, and surveyed the citation of evidence for five recommendation topics in guidelines for procedures.
RESULTS: Forty-seven guidelines, published between 2004 and 2020, were included. Guidelines for indications were developed mainly on systematic reviews (13 of 19, 68.4%). Among those, 12 (63.2%) reported the level of evidence, 4 (21.1%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (15.8%) described external review and 7 (36.8%) involved methodologists. Guidelines for procedures were seldom developed on systematic reviews (1 of 27, 3.7%). Among those, 1 (3.7%) reported the level of evidence, 1 (3.7%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (11.1%) described external review and 1 (3.7%) involved methodologists. Systematic review evidence was cited by 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines per recommendation topic in median.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among PET or PET/CT guidelines was suboptimal. While our survey is an icebreaking attempt to explore a key element (i.e. use of systematic review evidence) for developing nuclear medicine guidelines, assessments of other domains of guideline quality may help capture the entire picture.
CONCLUSIONS: • The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among guidelines for PET or PET/CT was suboptimal. • Only 13 (68.4%) guidelines for indications and 1 (3.7%) guideline for procedures systematically reviewed the literature during guideline development. • For each recommendation topic we examined, only a median of 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines cited systematic review evidence.