Literature DB >> 16915065

Interobserver and intraobserver variability of standardized uptake value measurements in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Edith M Marom1, Reginald F Munden, Mylene T Truong, Gregory W Gladish, Donald A Podoloff, Osama Mawlawi, Lyle D Broemeling, John F Bruzzi, Homer A Macapinlac.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess interobserver and intraobserver variabilities in measuring the maximal standardized uptake value (SUV) of non-small-cell lung cancer.
METHODS: Positron emission tomography-computed tomography examinations of 20 consecutive patients referred for initial evaluation of newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer were retrospectively reviewed by 5 experienced positron emission tomography-computed tomography readers, who independently measured the maximal SUV/body weight of the primary tumors. Interobserver and intraobserver variabilities were assessed by using 4 statistical methods: correlation, regression analysis, Bland-Altman analysis, and analysis of variance. The SUV measurements derived in the study were compared with the SUV measurements documented in the original reports using correlation and regression analysis. The percentages of tumors whose retrospective SUV measurements were more than 20% different and more than 25% different from those in the original report were assessed.
RESULTS: Both interobserver and intraobserver SUV measurements were highly reproducible. Pearson correlation coefficients were greater than 0.95 and 0.94, respectively. Good interobserver and intraobserver agreement was shown with regression analysis (F test P value >0.05), the Bland-Altman analysis, and analysis of variance (F test P value >0.95). The mean original SUV was much less than the mean study SUV (P<0.05). The study SUV differed from the SUV of the original report by more than 20% in 50% of the tumors, and by more than 25% in 45% of the tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: There was excellent interobserver and intraobserver agreement in SUVs measured in the study environment but poor agreement between study SUVs and those documented in original reports, which can affect treatment decisions substantially.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16915065     DOI: 10.1097/01.rti.0000213643.49664.4d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Imaging        ISSN: 0883-5993            Impact factor:   3.000


  11 in total

1.  Anatomic location of PET-positive aortocaval nodes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: implications for surgical staging.

Authors:  Michael Frumovitz; Pedro T Ramirez; Homer A Macapinlac; Ann H Klopp; Alpa M Nick; Lois M Ramondetta; Anuja Jhingran
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.437

2.  Impact of third-line treatment with irinotecan plus cetuximab on non-tumor standardized uptake values in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Kim Francis Andersen; Kristin Skougaard; Anne Lerberg Nielsen; Helle Westergren Hendel
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 2.967

3.  Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability among Measurements of FDG PET/CT Parameters in Pulmonary Tumors.

Authors:  Gülgün Büyükdereli; Mehtap Güler; Gülşah Şeydaoğlu
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 2.021

4.  Observer variation in FDG PET-CT for staging of non-small-cell lung carcinoma.

Authors:  Michael S Hofman; Nigel C Smeeton; Sheila C Rankin; Tom Nunan; Michael J O'Doherty
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Inter-operator variability in compartmental kinetic analysis of 18F-fluoromisonidazole dynamic PET.

Authors:  Sadek A Nehmeh; Jazmin Schwartz; Milan Grkovski; Ivan Yeung; Charles M Laymon; Mark Muzi; John L Humm
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 1.605

6.  Treatment monitoring by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with sarcomas: interobserver variability of quantitative parameters in treatment-induced changes in histopathologically responding and nonresponding tumors.

Authors:  Matthias R Benz; Vladimir Evilevitch; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Fritz C Eilber; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin; Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-06-13       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 7.  Data acquisition and analysis: the strength of methodology in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging.

Authors:  Giovanni Lucignani
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Uptake of (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose in the Healthy Testes of Young Men as Assessed by Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography; Including the Inter- and Intra-observer Variation.

Authors:  A Meij-de Vries; R J J Knol; S V Lazarenko; R W Meijer; E M van der Plas; H A Heij
Journal:  World J Nucl Med       Date:  2014-05

9.  Inter-observer agreement improves with PERCIST 1.0 as opposed to qualitative evaluation in non-small cell lung cancer patients evaluated with F-18-FDG PET/CT early in the course of chemo-radiotherapy.

Authors:  Joan Fledelius; Azza Khalil; Karin Hjorthaug; Jørgen Frøkiær
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 3.138

10.  Response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST/RECIST) and SUVmax in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Authors:  Cory Pierson; Taras Grinchak; Casey Sokolovic; Brandi Holland; Teresa Parent; Mark Bowling; Hyder Arastu; Paul Walker; Andrew Ju
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.