Image-guided biopsy: what the interventional radiologist needs to know about PET/CT.

Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) with fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is increasingly used in evaluation of oncology patients. Because PET/CT can demonstrate malignancy before morphologic changes are evident, application of PET/CT information to image-guided biopsy can facilitate early histologic diagnosis and staging. However, because FDG uptake is not specific to cancer, PET/CT findings may raise questions about whether uptake in a lesion is an indication for biopsy. To properly select patients for image-guided biopsy, interventional radiologists should be familiar with the biologic significance of FDG uptake and various causes of false-positive uptake. PET/CT images may also become a source of confusion in the interpretation of biopsy results. Various causes of false-positive and false-negative FDG uptake need to be considered, especially when there is a discrepancy between biopsy results and PET/CT findings. False-negative FDG uptake can result from cancers that are too small to be observed or not FDG avid. False-positive FDG uptake can be due to underlying inflammation from recent treatment. Conversely, complete resolution of FDG uptake in a treated lesion does not necessarily indicate absence of viable cells. When questions about PET/CT findings arise in the context of image-guided biopsy, discussion with experienced nuclear imaging physicians is essential.

Eight recommendations for policies for communicating abnormal test results.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations continue to struggle to ensure that critical findings are communicated and acted on in a timely and appropriate manner. Recent research highlights the risks of communication breakdowns along the entire spectrum of test-result abnormality, including significantly abnormal but nonemergent findings. Evidence-based and practical institutional policies must uphold effective processes to guide communication of abnormal test results. Eight recommendations for effective policies on communication of abnormal diagnostic test results were developed based on policy refinement at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Houston), institutional experience with test result management, and findings from research performed locally and elsewhere. KEY FACETS OF EFFECTIVE POLICIES: Research findings on vulnerabilities in existing policies and procedures were taken into consideration. The eight recommendations are based on important refinements to the policy which clarified staff roles and responsibilities for test ordering, follow-up, and communication; defined categories of abnormal test results to guide appropriate follow-up action; and elaborated procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of test result communication and follow-up. Participation of key stakeholders is recommended to enhance buy-in from personnel and to help ensure the policies feasibility and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed recommendations for ensuring safe test-result communication may be potentially useful to a wide variety of institutions and health care settings. These practical suggestions, based on research findings and experiences with a previous policy, may be a useful guide for designing or amending policies for safe test-result communication in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Communication outcomes of critical imaging results in a computerized notification system.

OBJECTIVE: Communication of abnormal test results in the outpatient setting is prone to error. Using information technology can improve communication and improve patient safety. We standardized processes and procedures in a computerized test result notification system and examined their effectiveness to reduce errors in communication of abnormal imaging results. DESIGN: We prospectively analyzed outcomes of computerized notification of abnormal test results (alerts) that providers did not explicitly acknowledge receiving in the electronic medical record of an ambulatory multispecialty clinic. MEASUREMENTS: In the study period, 190,799 outpatient visits occurred and 20,680 outpatient imaging tests were performed. We tracked 1,017 transmitted alerts electronically. Using a taxonomy of communication errors, we focused on alerts in which errors in acknowledgment and reception occurred. Unacknowledged alerts were identified through electronic tracking. Among these, we performed chart reviews to determine any evidence of documented response, such as ordering a follow-up test or consultation. If no response was documented, we contacted providers by telephone to determine their awareness of the test results and any follow-up action they had taken. These processes confirmed the presence or absence of alert reception. RESULTS: Providers failed to acknowledge receipt of over one-third (368 of 1,017) of transmitted alerts. In 45 of these cases (4% of abnormal results), the imaging study was completely lost to follow-up 4 weeks after the date of study. Overall, 0.2% of outpatient imaging was lost to follow-up. The rate of lost to follow-up imaging was 0.02% per outpatient visit. CONCLUSION: Imaging results continue to be lost to follow-up in a computerized test result notification system that alerted physicians through the electronic medical record. Although comparison data from previous studies are limited, the rate of results lost to follow-up appears to be lower than that reported in systems that do not use information technology comparable to what we evaluated.