Evaluation of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice regarding Positron Emission Tomography Scan among UG, Interns & PG students: A Survey Study

Authors

  • Dr. Balu George Assistant Professor, Department of Radiotherapy, Believers Church Medical College, Thiruvalla Author
  • Dr. Mahesh Chavan Associate Professor, Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Dr.DY Patil Vidyapeeth Pune Author
  • Dr. Nida Hamid Public Health Dentistry, Kothiwal Dental College & Research Centre, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh Author
  • Dr Nilesh Bhanawat Assistant professor, Department of or Udaipur Rajasthan India Author
  • Dr. Rahul VC Tiwari PhD Scholar, Dept of OMFS, Narsinbhai Patel Dental College and Hospital, Sankalchand Patel University, Visnagar, Gujarat Author
  • Dr. Sunil Kumar Gulia Senior Lect urer, Oral and maxillofacial Surgery, SGT University, Gurugram, Badli, Jhajjar, Haryana Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61841/2b17xe80

Keywords:

PET, knowledge, attitude, awareness, oncologic imaging, cancer detection

Abstract

Background: Positron Emission Tomography (PET) provides a highly sensitive and specific way of diagnosing and monitoring tumour cells. Knowledge and awareness regarding PET is crucial to oncologic imaging.

Objective: To evaluate the knowledge, attitude and practice regarding Positron Emission Tomography Scan among undergraduate, Intern & postgraduate medical students.

Material and Methods: A questionnaire comprising of questions on knowledge, attitude and practice regarding PET scan was sent to 300 UG, intern and PG medical students via email and social media platforms. The 179 responses received were documented and comparisons were made between the groups.

Results: 55.56% of UG medical students did not have knowledge of F-fluorodeoxyglucose as the most commonly used radioactive tracer in PET scans. 68.52% of the UG medical students were unaware what a ‘hotspot’ represented in a PET scan, 64.56% and 89.13% of interns and PG medical students chose the correct answer. 72.22%, 86.08% and 97.83% of UG, intern and PG students respectively, agreed that PET scan helps in determining biochemical and physiological activity of tumours.

Conclusion: PG students displayed the greatest knowledge concerning PET scan. Medical students accept the importance and utility of a PET scan in oncologic imaging.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Nutt R. The history of positron emission tomography. Molecular Imaging & Biology. 2002 Jan 1;4(1):11-26.

2. Jones T, Townsend DW. History and future technical innovation in positron emission tomography. Journal of

Medical Imaging. 2017 Mar;4(1):011013.

3. Vaquero JJ, Kinahan P. Positron emission tomography: current challenges and opportunities for

technological advances in clinical and preclinical imaging systems. Annual review of biomedical

engineering. 2015 Dec 7;17:385-414.

4. Shukla AK, Kumar U. Positron emission tomography: An overview. Journal of medical physics/Association

of Medical Physicists of India. 2006 Jan;31(1):13.

5. Farwell MD, Pryma DA, Mankoff DA. PET/CT imaging in cancer: current applications and future directions.

Cancer. 2014 Nov 15;120(22):3433-45.

6. Nagaraj T, Santosh HN, James L, Okade D, Mahalakshmi IP, Sinha P. Evaluation of knowledge, attitude, and

practice regarding positron emission tomography scan: A cross-sectional survey. Journal of Medicine,

Radiology, Pathology and Surgery. 2015 Jul 1;1(4):6-10.

7. Liberti MV, Locasale JW. The Warburg effect: how does it benefit cancer cells?. Trends in biochemical

sciences. 2016 Mar 1;41(3):211-8.

8. Dubitzky W, Wolkenhauer O, Yokota H, Cho KH. Encyclopedia of systems biology. Springer Publishing

Company, Incorporated; 2013 Aug 17.

9. Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Nathanson D, Herrmann K. PET/CT in oncology: current status and

perspectives. Current radiology reports. 2013 Sep;1(3):177-90.

10. Long NM, Smith CS. Causes and imaging features of false positives and false negatives on 18 F-PET/CT in

oncologic imaging. Insights into imaging. 2011 Dec 1;2(6):679-98.

11. Sharma DN, Rath GK, Parashar A, Singh P. Survey of undergraduate medical students on their understanding

and attitude towards the discipline of radiotherapy. Journal of cancer research and therapeutics. 2010 Jan

1;6(1):11.

12. Machtay M, Natwa M, Andrel J, Hyslop T, Anne PR, Lavarino J, Intenzo CM, Keane W. Pretreatment FDG

PET standardized uptake value as a prognostic factor for outcome in head and neck cancer. Head & Neck:

Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck. 2009 Feb;31(2):195-201.

13. Maurer AH, Burshteyn M, Adler LP, Steiner RM. How to differentiate benign versus malignant cardiac and

paracardiac 18F FDG uptake at oncologic PET/CT. Radiographics. 2011 Sep;31(5):1287-305.

14. Zhu A, Lee D, Shim H. Metabolic positron emission tomography imaging in cancer detection and therapy

response. In Seminars in oncology 2011 Feb 1 (Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 55-69). WB Saunders.

15. Griffeth LK. Use of PET/CT scanning in cancer patients: technical and practical considerations. InBaylor

University Medical Center Proceedings 2005 Oct 1 (Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 321-330). Taylor & Francis.

16. Suzuki H, Hasegawa Y, Terada A, Ogawa T, Hyodo I, Suzuki M, Nakashima T, Tamaki T, Nishio M.

Limitations of FDG-PET and FDG-PET with computed tomography for detecting synchronous cancer in

pharyngeal cancer. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery. 2008 Nov 17;134(11):1191-5.

Downloads

Published

30.04.2020

Issue

Vol. 24 No. 4 (2020): 24 (4) 2020

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  1. Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
  2. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
  3. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

  1. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  2. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices:

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

How to Cite

George, B., Chavan, M., Hamid, N., Bhanawat, N., Tiwari, R. V., & Gulia , S. K. (2020). Evaluation of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice regarding Positron Emission Tomography Scan among UG, Interns & PG students: A Survey Study . International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(4), 9758-9763. https://doi.org/10.61841/2b17xe80