PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate, in a nationwide study, the inter-observer variation and performance in interpretations of bone scans regarding the presence or absence of bone metastases. METHODS: Bone scan images from 59 patients with breast or prostate cancer, who had undergone scintigraphy due to suspected bone metastatic disease, were studied. The patients were selected to reflect the spectrum of pathology found in everyday clinical work. Whole body images, anterior and posterior views, were sent to all 30 hospitals in Sweden that perform bone scans. Thirty-seven observers from 18 hospitals agreed to participate in the study. They were asked to classify each of the patient studies regarding the presence of bone metastasis, using a four-point scale. Each observer's classifications were pairwise compared with the classifications made by all the other observers, resulting in 666 pairs of comparisons. The interpretations of the 37 observers were also compared with the final clinical assessment, which was based on follow-up scans and other clinical data. RESULTS: On average, two observers agreed on 64% of the bone scan classifications. Kappa values ranged between 0.16 and 0.82, with a mean of 0.48. Sensitivity and specificity for the observers compared with the final clinical assessment were 77% and 96%, respectively, for detecting bone metastases in planar whole-body bone scanning. CONCLUSION: Moderate inter-observer agreement was found when observers were compared pairwise. False-negative errors seem to be the major problem in the interpretations of bone scan images, whilst the specificities for the observers were high.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate, in a nationwide study, the inter-observer variation and performance in interpretations of bone scans regarding the presence or absence of bone metastases. METHODS: Bone scan images from 59 patients with breast or prostate cancer, who had undergone scintigraphy due to suspected bone metastatic disease, were studied. The patients were selected to reflect the spectrum of pathology found in everyday clinical work. Whole body images, anterior and posterior views, were sent to all 30 hospitals in Sweden that perform bone scans. Thirty-seven observers from 18 hospitals agreed to participate in the study. They were asked to classify each of the patient studies regarding the presence of bone metastasis, using a four-point scale. Each observer's classifications were pairwise compared with the classifications made by all the other observers, resulting in 666 pairs of comparisons. The interpretations of the 37 observers were also compared with the final clinical assessment, which was based on follow-up scans and other clinical data. RESULTS: On average, two observers agreed on 64% of the bone scan classifications. Kappa values ranged between 0.16 and 0.82, with a mean of 0.48. Sensitivity and specificity for the observers compared with the final clinical assessment were 77% and 96%, respectively, for detecting bone metastases in planar whole-body bone scanning. CONCLUSION: Moderate inter-observer agreement was found when observers were compared pairwise. False-negative errors seem to be the major problem in the interpretations of bone scan images, whilst the specificities for the observers were high.
Authors: A Michael Peters; Jamshed Bomanji; Durval Campos Costa; Peter J Ell; Isky Gordon; Belinda L Henderson; Andrew J W Hilson Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Emilio Bombardieri; Cumali Aktolun; Richard P Baum; Angelika Bishof-Delaloye; John Buscombe; Jean François Chatal; Lorenzo Maffioli; Roy Moncayo; Luc Morteímans; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: May Sadik; David Jakobsson; Fredrik Olofsson; Mattias Ohlsson; Madis Suurkula; Lars Edenbrandt Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Robert C Hendel; Frans J Th Wackers; Daniel S Berman; Edward Ficaro; E Gordon DePuey; Larry Klein; Manuel Cerqueira Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: David Ulmert; Reza Kaboteh; Josef J Fox; Caroline Savage; Michael J Evans; Hans Lilja; Per-Anders Abrahamsson; Thomas Björk; Axel Gerdtsson; Anders Bjartell; Peter Gjertsson; Peter Höglund; Milan Lomsky; Mattias Ohlsson; Jens Richter; May Sadik; Michael J Morris; Howard I Scher; Karl Sjöstrand; Alice Yu; Madis Suurküla; Lars Edenbrandt; Steven M Larson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Aseem Anand; Michael J Morris; Reza Kaboteh; Lena Båth; May Sadik; Peter Gjertsson; Milan Lomsky; Lars Edenbrandt; David Minarik; Anders Bjartell Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthew S Brown; Gregory H Chu; Hyun J Kim; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Cheryce Poon; Juliette Bridges; Adria Vidovic; Bharath Ramakrishna; Judy Ho; Michael J Morris; Steven M Larson; Howard I Scher; Jonathan G Goldin Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: D M Moreira; M R Cooperberg; L E Howard; W J Aronson; C J Kane; M K Terris; C L Amling; M Kuchibhatla; S J Freedland Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Aseem Anand; Michael J Morris; Reza Kaboteh; Mariana Reza; Elin Trägårdh; Naofumi Matsunaga; Lars Edenbrandt; Anders Bjartell; Steven M Larson; David Minarik Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrew J Armstrong; Reza Kaboteh; Michael A Carducci; Jan-Erik Damber; Walter M Stadler; Mats Hansen; Lars Edenbrandt; Göran Forsberg; Örjan Nordle; Roberto Pili; Michael J Morris Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 3.498