Is hybridic positron emission tomography/computerized tomography the only option? The future of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging.

As we all know, Nuclear Medicine is the medical science using nuclear radiation for diagnosis, treatment and research. Nuclear Medicine, in contrast to Radiology, makes use of unsealed sources of radiation. Nuclear Medicine a few years ago has partly offered Nuclear Cardiology, the most lucrative of all Nuclear Medicine "children" at that time, to Cardiology. Radiology, has succeeded in being recognized by the European Union Authorities as Clinical Radiology. The word "clinical" offers greater independence to Clinical Radiology and makes it difficult for such a specialty to relinquish any of its equipment i.e. the diagnostic CT scan or the newly developed fast angiography CT, to other specialties. Contrary to Clinical Radiology, Nuclear Medicine being a laboratory specialty in most countries seems to have no right to deny offering, after some period of "proper certified education", its PET camera to Clinical Radiologists. Nuclear Medicine by virtue of its unique diagnostic techniques and treatments, is and should be recognized as a "Clinical Specialty" The interference of other specialties in the fields of Nuclear Medicine is also indicated by the fact that in vitro techniques of Nuclear Medicine are often used by Endocrinologists and Oncologists in their own laboratories. Also in some hospitals the Director of the Radiology Department acts as the Director of Nuclear Medicine Laboratory. Finally at present, Radiologists wish after "proper certified education", to be on equal terms in charge of the new hybridic equipment, the PET/CT scanner. If that is followed to happen, Nuclear Medicine will be in a difficult position losing at least part of PET and consequently should ask for help from its "Overlords and Protectors" i.e. the National and the European Societies of Nuclear Medicine and the Society of Nuclear Medicine of the United States of America. Radiology as a specialty participating om equal terms with the PET camera will then include the study of: a) "open sources of radiation" b) nuclear radiation and c) molecular nuclear medicine. The "European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging" shall have to erase the three last words of its title and be renamed. As Professor Abass Alavi et al (2007), have mentioned: "Is PET/CT the only option?" In favor of PET/CT are the following: Attenuation correction (AC) and better anatomical localization of lesions visualized with PET. Also PET/CT can be used as a diagnostic CT scanner (dCT). Against using the PET/CT scanners are the following arguments: a) This equipment is not necessary because we can always ask the Radiologists for a dCT scan. Many patients have already done a dCT scan at the time they are referred for a PET scan to the Nuclear Medicine Department. b) The absolute clinical indications for PET/CT with the use of a contrast agent, are under investigation. c) Although there is at present a list of indications suggested for the PET/CT scanner, there are studies disputing some of these indications, as for example in metastatic colon cancer where a high diagnostic accuracy for PET study alone, has been reported. d) The option of AC performed by the PET/CT scanner has also been questioned. Artifacts may be up to 84%. e) The PET/CT is expensive, time consuming, space occupying, and needs additional medical and technical personnel. f) Not to mention the extra radiation dose to the patients. g) Shall we inform those young medical students who wish to become nuclear medicine physicians, to hold their decision till the content of future Nuclear Medicine is clarified? We may suggest that: Our specialty could be renamed as: "Clinical Nuclear Medicine" and include additional "proper certified education" on the PET/CT equipment. The PET/CT scanner should remain in the Nuclear Medicine Department where Radiologists could act as advisors.