The PET/CT incidental finding and the question of who tells the patient
A 58-year-old woman undergoes an 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging of a newly diagnosed lung adenocarcinoma. The study is ordered by her medical oncologist. The interpreting radiologist/nuclear medicine physician identifies the expected hypermetabolic lung mass, but also notes a 1.8 cm thyroid nodule with focal FDG uptake (SUVmax 6.4) and a 2.1 cm adrenal nodule with mild uptake (SUVmax 3.1). The final report recommends ultrasound-guided FNA of the thyroid and dedicated adrenal imaging. The report is finalized and sent to the ordering oncologist. Two weeks later, the patient calls the nuclear medicine department directly because she accessed her radiology report through the patient portal and is frightened by the words "suspicious for malignancy." She asks the technologist who answers the phone to explain what the report means and whether she has cancer in her thyroid.
1. What are the professionalism and ethical obligations of the technologist and the physician in this interaction?
Read the worked answer
The core tension is between patient autonomy/transparency and the appropriate scope and channel of communication.
- The technologist must not interpret the study. Explaining what "suspicious for malignancy" means in this patient's case is a medical interpretation, outside the technologist's scope. The technologist should acknowledge the patient's distress, confirm that the report has been sent to the ordering oncologist, and facilitate a call back from the interpreting physician or the oncologist. They should not say "it's probably nothing" or "it could be cancer."
- The interpreting physician has a duty to communicate actionable findings, but the primary channel is the ordering physician, who holds the clinical context and the responsibility for the next step. The report already recommended FNA; the loop is closed only if the oncologist acts on it.
- Open-results access means patients will read reports before a clinician explains them. This is a known and legitimate consequence of transparency policy; the department should have a process for it, not treat it as an anomaly.
- Honesty: the patient should not be misled. She should be told that the report describes findings that need follow-up, that the ordering physician is the right person to explain them, and given a concrete timeframe for that call.
The wrong answers are: refusing to speak to her, reading the report to her as if that constitutes an explanation, or offering reassurance the technologist is not qualified to give.
2. What system-level fix should the physicist or department lead propose, and what are the limits of that fix?
Read the worked answer
Proposed fix:
- A written patient-facing communication pathway for portal-accessed reports: who calls the patient, within what timeframe, and with what scripted language (acknowledge, do not interpret, route to ordering clinician, give a time).
- A flag in the report for incidental findings that require follow-up, with a tracked worklist so the department can confirm the ordering physician received and acted on it.
- Education for technologists on scope of practice and on de-escalation language.
Limits:
- No system fix removes the patient's distress or the physician's duty to communicate. The pathway only ensures the right person speaks to her promptly.
- A tracking worklist can create a false sense of closure if it records "report sent" rather than "patient contacted and plan made."
- The department cannot control what the patient reads or when; it can only control the response.
The judgment being tested: recognizing that the ethical obligation is to route and support, not to answer the clinical question, and that a process fix is appropriate but does not substitute for the individual clinician's duty.