OBJECTIVE: To measure and describe patterns of interobserver variation in visual interpretation of 18-FDG PET in malignant lymphoma. METHODS: Eleven nuclear medicine physicians with different levels of PET experience independently reviewed 37 18F-FDG PET scans of lymphoma patients (10 obtained at presentation, 27 during or after therapy). They were requested to identify and localize suspicious lymphoma sites and to assign a stage to the baseline scans, and to interpret the remaining scans for the presence of viable lymphoma. Individual (extra-)nodal regions were assessed for the likelihood of malignancy as positive, negative or equivocal. These results were compared to expert readings after dichotomization in conservative and sensitive reading classifications. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent and 56% (using sensitive and conservative reading, respectively) of the baseline scans were scored in accordance with the experts. Fourteen of the 27 scans obtained for therapy evaluation with viable tumour sites were scored in accordance with the experts in 82% and 94% of the patients, using conservative and sensitive reading, respectively. The 13 negative scans were scored in agreement with the experts in only 45% of the cases. False positivity pertained especially to the neck, periclavicular, axilla, mediastinum, lung and bone marrow. More experienced observers tended to have fewer false negative scores. CONCLUSION: There are substantial disparities among nuclear medicine physicians' interpretations of FDG PET scans of lymphoma patients, which may affect patient care and results of multi-institutional clinical trials. A well-defined set of criteria is urgently needed to improve consistency.
OBJECTIVE: To measure and describe patterns of interobserver variation in visual interpretation of 18-FDG PET in malignant lymphoma. METHODS: Eleven nuclear medicine physicians with different levels of PET experience independently reviewed 37 18F-FDG PET scans of lymphomapatients (10 obtained at presentation, 27 during or after therapy). They were requested to identify and localize suspicious lymphoma sites and to assign a stage to the baseline scans, and to interpret the remaining scans for the presence of viable lymphoma. Individual (extra-)nodal regions were assessed for the likelihood of malignancy as positive, negative or equivocal. These results were compared to expert readings after dichotomization in conservative and sensitive reading classifications. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent and 56% (using sensitive and conservative reading, respectively) of the baseline scans were scored in accordance with the experts. Fourteen of the 27 scans obtained for therapy evaluation with viable tumour sites were scored in accordance with the experts in 82% and 94% of the patients, using conservative and sensitive reading, respectively. The 13 negative scans were scored in agreement with the experts in only 45% of the cases. False positivity pertained especially to the neck, periclavicular, axilla, mediastinum, lung and bone marrow. More experienced observers tended to have fewer false negative scores. CONCLUSION: There are substantial disparities among nuclear medicine physicians' interpretations of FDG PET scans of lymphomapatients, which may affect patient care and results of multi-institutional clinical trials. A well-defined set of criteria is urgently needed to improve consistency.
Authors: Sally F Barrington; Wendi Qian; Edward J Somer; Antonella Franceschetto; Bruno Bagni; Eva Brun; Helén Almquist; Annika Loft; Liselotte Højgaard; Massimo Federico; Andrea Gallamini; Paul Smith; Peter Johnson; John Radford; Michael J O'Doherty Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Wim J G Oyen; Corneline J Hoekstra; Otto S Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Antoon T Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee Zijlstra; Anne M Paans; Emile F I Comans; Jan Pruim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lale Kostakoglu; Heiko Schöder; Jeffrey L Johnson; Nathan C Hall; Lawrence H Schwartz; David J Straus; Ann S LaCasce; Sin-Ho Jung; Nancy L Bartlett; George P Canellos; Bruce D Cheson Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2012-08-28
Authors: Bouthaina S Dabaja; Jack Phan; Osama Mawlawi; L Jeffrey Medeiros; Carol Etzel; Fu-Wen Liang; Donald Podoloff; Yasuhiro Oki; Fredrick B Hagemeister; Hubert Chuang; Luis E Fayad; Jason Robert Westin; Ferial Shihadeh; Pamela K Allen; Christine F Wogan; Maria A Rodriguez Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2013-05-07
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Mike J O'Doherty; Wolfgang A Weber; Felix M Mottaghy; Markus N Lonsdale; Sigrid G Stroobants; Wim J G Oyen; Joerg Kotzerke; Otto S Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Paul K Marsden; Klaus Tatsch; Corneline J Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee M Zijlstra; Emile F I Comans; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Anne M Paans; Antoon T Willemsen; Thomas Beyer; Andreas Bockisch; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Dominique Delbeke; Richard P Baum; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yvette L Kasamon; Richard L Wahl; Harvey A Ziessman; Amanda L Blackford; Steven N Goodman; Caroline A Fidyk; Kathryn M Rogers; Javier Bolaños-Meade; Michael J Borowitz; Richard F Ambinder; Richard J Jones; Lode J Swinnen Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.742