BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of two semi-quantitative scoring systems to assess response to (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (mIBG) therapy in recurrent neuroblastoma. PROCEDURES: Diagnostic mIBG scan pairs (n = 57) were collected for patients who underwent (131)I-mIBG therapy for relapsed neuroblastoma. Two scoring systems were designated: Method 1, which divided the body into nine segments to view osteomedullary lesions with an additional tenth segment to assess soft tissue involvement; and Method 2, which divided the body into seven segments without a corresponding compartment for soft tissue involvement. Four nuclear medicine physicians independently assigned extension and intensity scores utilizing both methods, and separately recorded their impression of whether the post-therapy scan had improved, not changed, or worsened. Inter- and intra-observer concordance and correlation with overall response and progression-free survival (PFS) were performed. RESULTS: Method 1 produced the highest inter-observer concordance and was used to calculate the relative extension scores (post-therapy score divided by pre-therapy score), which correlated significantly with overall response. Patients who achieved complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (n = 21) had lower relative extension scores, compared to those without response (P < 0.001). The readers' overall impression associated highly (P < 0.001) with the relative extension scores though results were less quantitative. Concordance was higher if initial scores were >5. Relative extension score did not predict PFS. CONCLUSION: Semi-quantitative scoring of mIBG scans provides a more reliable method of assessing response in patients with relapsed neuroblastoma than qualitative impression. The reproducibility and high inter-observer concordance makes mIBG score an important component of overall response criteria in patients with recurrent neuroblastoma.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of two semi-quantitative scoring systems to assess response to (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (mIBG) therapy in recurrent neuroblastoma. PROCEDURES: Diagnostic mIBG scan pairs (n = 57) were collected for patients who underwent (131)I-mIBG therapy for relapsed neuroblastoma. Two scoring systems were designated: Method 1, which divided the body into nine segments to view osteomedullary lesions with an additional tenth segment to assess soft tissue involvement; and Method 2, which divided the body into seven segments without a corresponding compartment for soft tissue involvement. Four nuclear medicine physicians independently assigned extension and intensity scores utilizing both methods, and separately recorded their impression of whether the post-therapy scan had improved, not changed, or worsened. Inter- and intra-observer concordance and correlation with overall response and progression-free survival (PFS) were performed. RESULTS: Method 1 produced the highest inter-observer concordance and was used to calculate the relative extension scores (post-therapy score divided by pre-therapy score), which correlated significantly with overall response. Patients who achieved complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (n = 21) had lower relative extension scores, compared to those without response (P < 0.001). The readers' overall impression associated highly (P < 0.001) with the relative extension scores though results were less quantitative. Concordance was higher if initial scores were >5. Relative extension score did not predict PFS. CONCLUSION: Semi-quantitative scoring of mIBG scans provides a more reliable method of assessing response in patients with relapsed neuroblastoma than qualitative impression. The reproducibility and high inter-observer concordance makes mIBG score an important component of overall response criteria in patients with recurrent neuroblastoma.
Authors: Emilio Bombardieri; Francesco Giammarile; Cumali Aktolun; Richard P Baum; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Lorenzo Maffioli; Roy Moncayo; Luc Mortelmans; Giovanna Pepe; Sven N Reske; Maria R Castellani; Arturo Chiti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sara M Federico; Kenneth J Caldwell; Mary B McCarville; Vinay M Daryani; Clinton F Stewart; Shenghua Mao; Jianrong Wu; Andrew M Davidoff; Victor M Santana; Wayne L Furman; Alberto S Pappo; Fariba Navid Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Katherine K Matthay; Alekist Quach; John Huberty; Benjamin L Franc; Randall A Hawkins; Hollie Jackson; Susan Groshen; Suzanne Shusterman; Gregory Yanik; Janet Veatch; Patricia Brophy; Judith G Villablanca; John M Maris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K K Matthay; B Shulkin; R Ladenstein; J Michon; F Giammarile; V Lewington; A D J Pearson; S L Cohn Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Gregory A Yanik; Marguerite T Parisi; Barry L Shulkin; Arlene Naranjo; Susan G Kreissman; Wendy B London; Judith G Villablanca; John M Maris; Julie R Park; Susan L Cohn; Patrick McGrady; Katherine K Matthay Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hanwen Zhang; Ruimin Huang; Nai-Kong V Cheung; Hongfen Guo; Pat B Zanzonico; Howard T Thaler; Jason S Lewis; Ronald G Blasberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 12.531