Structured Reporting & Standardized Systems

Quick Answer

Standardized reporting turns subjective impressions into reproducible, comparable, and actionable statements — increasingly expected in nuclear medicine and essential for a reference platform. Each domain has its framework: Deauville/Lugano (lymphoma), PERCIST (metabolic response), PROMISE/PSMA-RADS (PSMA-PET), RECIP 1.0 (Lu-PSMA response), Krenning (SSTR), Perugini/H:CL (cardiac amyloid), IMPeTUs (myeloma), NI-RADS (head-and-neck post-treatment), and structured summed-score reporting for MPI.

Why it matters

• Reproducibility: two readers reach the same conclusion; serial studies are truly comparable.
• Actionability: each category maps to a management recommendation (e.g. NI-RADS levels, RECIP response classes).
• Communication & research: structured, coded data support registries, audit, AI, and — for a publishing platform — citable, comparable outputs.

The framework map

Minimum report elements (general)

Indication and relevant history; radiopharmaceutical, activity, and technique (uptake time, glucose, stress agent, attenuation correction); image quality/limitations; findings with the applicable standardized score; comparison to priors; and a clear, actionable impression.

Report the score, not just "positive/negative"

Standardized frameworks turn subjective impressions into reproducible, comparable, actionable statements — and each carries a management implication. Report the score (Deauville, PERCIST, PSMA-RADS, RECIP, Krenning, Perugini, IMPeTUs, NI-RADS, SSS/SRS/SDS), because "Deauville 4" or "NI-RADS 2" tells the clinician what to do next; "abnormal" does not.

Comparability is a discipline

Serial comparison is only valid when technique is held constant — same agent, uptake time, reconstruction/scanner, stress protocol, and reference region. This is why SUV needs harmonization (EARL) and why summed scores need a consistent software/normal database.

The minimum report

A complete report states the indication and history; the radiopharmaceutical, activity, and technique (uptake time, glucose, stress agent, attenuation correction); image quality/limitations; findings with the applicable standardized score; comparison to priors; and a clear, actionable impression. Structured, coded reporting is also the substrate for audit, registries, AI, and — for a publishing platform — citable, comparable outputs.

High-Yield Pearls

• Report the score, not just "positive/negative" — it carries the management implication.
• Hold technique constant for valid serial comparison (especially SUV/summed scores).
• Standardized, coded reporting is the substrate for audit, AI, and academic reuse.

Common Pitfalls

• Free-text impressions that omit the standardized category.
• Mixing frameworks or applying anatomic-only criteria (RECIST) where metabolic criteria (PERCIST/Deauville) are indicated.

Related Pages

• Reporting: Cardiac MPI reporting, Theranostics response criteria; physics: SUV harmonization & EARL.

Self-Check