ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Addressing unmet needs in nuclear medicine: Italian experience with PET/CT features and structured reporting in oncology.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPositron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is nowadays widely incorporated into international guidelines for tumor management. However, variability in reporting practices and uncertainty regarding the optimal use of structured elements in PET/CT reports may affect communication with referring clinicians and the clinical impact of the examination. This study aimed to characterize current oncological PET/CT reporting practices among nuclear medicine physicians in Italy, with particular focus on the use of structured reporting elements. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis observational study included nuclear medicine physicians practicing in Italy. Data were collected using a standardized 31-item web-based questionnaire developed by the Young Working Group of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (AIMN) and reviewed by the AIMN Oncology Working Group. Heterogeneity across reporting domains was quantified using the normalized Shannon-Wiener Index. Differences in reporting practices according to PET interpretation experience (≤ 10 vs. > 10 years) were assessed using the chi-square test.
resultsA total of 152 nuclear medicine physicians were included, with broad geographic representation across Italy. Considerable variability was observed in self-reported PET/CT reporting practices, including the incorporation of patients' clinical history, the reporting approach adopted (TNM-based, lesion-based, or anatomical region-based), and the use of semiquantitative parameters and standardized interpretation score. CT findings corresponding to PET abnormalities were generally included in the report, whereas approaches to incidental findings and PET-negative findings varied among participants. Attitudes toward standardized reporting were heterogeneous, with approximately half of participants considering it useful only in selected clinical settings.
conclusionsOncological PET/CT reporting practices among nuclear medicine physicians in Italy show substantial heterogeneity despite extensive professional experience. Greater harmonization of reporting practices may improve the clarity and clinical utility of PET/CT reports. These findings may provide a basis for scientific societies to develop practical reporting recommendations that balance standardization with flexibility in routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42814274What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.