Abstract
The physician, technologist, and ancillary staff all play valuable roles in the care and management of patients in a PET-CT facility. With the advent of combined scanners such as PET-CT, expertise and skill level of personnel is increasing as they pursue additional knowledge to practice in this modality. PET-CT imaging requires that each member of the team exercises due diligence for their part of the patient’s experience. PET-CT is a dynamic, rapidly evolving modality that offers myriad opportunities to those who practice in the profession and a wealth of information for the patients and physicians it services.
Patient preparation and management are critical components of PET-CT imaging for oncology. The combined modality nature of PET-CT adds complexity to patient preparation and management throughout all phases of the examination. Patients also have a myriad of options today when seeking care, and it is essential for facilities to distinguish themselves as a provider of choice. This requires that they have effective forms of communication, excellent patient care, and health professionals who inspire patient confidence involved in each aspect of the experience. The mechanisms a facility has in practice for scheduling, preappointment and day of service consultations, patient preparation, imaging, and postimaging routines all affect the patient’s experience and the ultimate diagnostic utility of the PET-CT examination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bettmann MA. Frequently asked questions: iodinated contrast agents. RadioGraphics 2004;24:S3–S10.
Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. Contrast media and the kidney: European society of urogenital radiology (EUSR) guidelines. Br J Radiol 2003;76:513–518.
Beyer T, Antoch G, Muller S, et al. Acquisition protocol considerations for combined PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med 2004;45:25S–35S.
Wahl RL, Henry CA, Ethier SP. Serum glucose: effects on tumor and normal tissue accumulation of 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in rodents with mammary carcinoma. Radiology 1992;183:643–647.
Massie MJ. Prevalence of depression in patients with cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;32:57–71.
The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Anxiolysis Policy. 2003. Volume VII.A.1.007.
Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anethesiology 2002;96:1004–1017.
Martin ML, Lennox PH. Sedation and analgesia in the interventional radiology department. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:1119–1128.
Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variant pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis. RadioGraphics 1999;19:61–77.
Lum D, Wandell S, Ko J, Coel M. Positron emission tomography of thoracic lesions: reduction of myocardial fluorodeoxyglucose uptake artifacts with carbohydrate restricted diet. Clin Positr Imag 2000;3(4):155.
Vesselle HJ, Miraldi FD. FDG PET of the retroperitoneum: normal anatomy, variants, pathologic conditions, and strategies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls. RadioGraphics 1998;18:805–823.
Hicks RJ, Binns D, Stabin MG. Pattern of uptake and excretion of 18F-FDG in the lactating breast. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1238–1242.
Elkin MK, Perry AG, Potter PA. Nursing Interventions and Clinical Skills, 3 rd edn. St. Louis: Mosby, 2004.
Shreve P. Establishing a PET/CT practice. Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:S146–S151.
Faasse T, Kloska M, Ploeg M, Shreve P. Radiation exposure levels near patients during FDG uptake phase. Mol Imag Biol 2005;7(Suppl):24.
Jensen SC, Peppers MP. Pharmacology and Drug Administration for Imaging Technologists. St. Louis: Mosby, 1998.
Koenraad JM, Oliva M-R, Ondategui S, Ros PR, Silverman SG, Universal use of nonionic contrast medium for CT: evaluation of safety in a large urban teaching hospital. Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:31–34.
Thie JA, Hubner KF, Smith FT. Optimizing imaging time for improved performances in oncology PET studies. Mol Imag Biol 2002;4:238–244.
Keyes JW. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 1995;36:1836–1839.
Beaulieu S, Kinahan P, Tseng J, et al. SUV varies with time after injection in 18F-FDG PET of breast cancer: characterization and method to adjust for time differences. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1044–1050.
Torizuka T, Tamaki N, Inokuma T, et al. In vivo assessment of glucose metabolism in hepatocellular carcinoma with FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 1995;36:1811–1817.
Tatsuya H, Tsuneo S, Yuji N, et al. Relationship between retention index in dual-phase 18F-FDG PET, and hexokinase-II and glucose transporter-1 expression in pancreatic cancer. J Nucl Med 2002;43:173–180.
Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18-F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med 2005;46:424–428.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Swanston, N.M., Shreve, P. (2011). Patient Preparation and Management. In: Shreve, P., Townsend, D. (eds) Clinical PET-CT in Radiology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-48902-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-48902-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-48900-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-48902-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)