Literature DB >> 19837757

Assessment of interobserver reproducibility in quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy.

Heather A Jacene1, Sophie Leboulleux, Shingo Baba, Daniel Chatzifotiadis, Behnaz Goudarzi, Oleg Teytelbaum, Karen M Horton, Ihab Kamel, Katarzyna J Macura, Hua-Ling Tsai, Jeanne Kowalski, Richard L Wahl.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Our goal was to estimate and compare across different readers the reproducibility of the (18)F-FDG PET standardized uptake value (SUV) and CT size measurements, and changes in those measurements, in malignant tumors before and after therapy.
METHODS: Fifty-two tumors in 25 patients were evaluated on (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans. Maximum SUVs (SUV(bw) max) and CT size measurements were determined for each tumor independently on pre- and posttreatment scans by 8 different readers (4 PET, 4 CT) using routine nonautomated clinical methods. Percentage changes in SUV(bw) max and CT size between pre- and posttreatment scans were calculated. Interobserver reproducibility of SUV(bw) max, CT size, and changes in these values were described by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and estimates of variance.
RESULTS: The ICC was higher for the pretreatment, posttreatment, and percentage change in SUV(bw) max than the ICC for the longest CT size and the 2-dimensional CT size (before treatment, 0.93, 0.72, and 0.61, respectively; after treatment, 0.91, 0.85, and 0.45, respectively; and percentage change, 0.94, 0.70, and 0.33, respectively). The variability of SUV(bw) max was significantly lower than the variability of the longest CT size and the 2-dimensional CT size (mean +/- SD before treatment, 6.3% +/- 14.2%, 16.2% +/- 17.8%, and 27.5% +/- 26.7%, respectively, P < or = 0.001; and after treatment, 18.4% +/- 26.8%, 35.1% +/- 47.5%, and 50.9% +/- 51.4%, respectively, P < or = 0.02). The variability of percentage change in SUV(bw) max (16.7% +/- 36.2%) was significantly lower than that for percentage change in the longest CT size (156.3% +/- 157.3%, P < or = 0.0001) and the 2-dimensional CT size (178.4% +/- 546.5%, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The interobserver reproducibility of SUV(bw) max for both untreated and treated tumors and percentage change in SUV(bw) max are substantially higher than measurements of CT size and percentage change in CT size. Measurements of tumor metabolism by PET should be included in trials to assess response to therapy. Although PET reproducibility was high, the variability observed in analyses of identical image sets by 4 readers indicates that automated analytic tools to assess response might be helpful to further enhance reproducibility.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19837757     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  31 in total

1.  Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium.

Authors:  Frederic H Fahey; Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Mehmet Kocak; Harold Thurston; Tina Young Poussaint
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Quantitation of Cancer Treatment Response by 18F-FDG PET/CT: Multicenter Assessment of Measurement Variability.

Authors:  Joo Hyun O; Heather Jacene; Brandon Luber; Hao Wang; Minh-Huy Huynh; Jeffrey P Leal; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Development of standardized image interpretation for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT to detect prostate cancer recurrent lesions.

Authors:  Stefano Fanti; Silvia Minozzi; Joshua James Morigi; Frederik Giesel; Francesco Ceci; Christian Uprimny; Michael S Hofman; Matthias Eiber; Sarah Schwarzenbock; Paolo Castellucci; Cristina Bellisario; Stéphane Chauvie; Fabrizio Bergesio; Louise Emmett; Uwe Haberkorn; Irene Virgolini; Markus Schwaiger; Rodney J Hicks; Bernd J Krause; Arturo Chiti
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Practical approach for comparative analysis of multilesion molecular imaging using a semiautomated program for PET/CT.

Authors:  Josef J Fox; Estelle Autran-Blanc; Michael J Morris; Somali Gavane; Sadek Nehmeh; André Van Nuffel; Mithat Gönen; Heiko Schöder; John L Humm; Howard I Scher; Steven M Larson
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  The intensity of 18FDG uptake does not predict tumor growth in patients with metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer.

Authors:  Marie Terroir; Isabelle Borget; François Bidault; Marcel Ricard; Frédéric Deschamps; Dana Hartl; Lambros Tselikas; Laurent Dercle; Jean Lumbroso; Eric Baudin; Amandine Berdelou; Désirée Deandreis; Martin Schlumberger; Sophie Leboulleux
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-10-29       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Design considerations for using PET as a response measure in single site and multicenter clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert K Doot; Brenda F Kurland; Paul E Kinahan; David A Mankoff
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 7.  What Do We Measure in Oncology PET?

Authors:  Kyoungjune Pak; Seong-Jang Kim
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-04-18

8.  Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for monitoring therapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Christopher C Riedl; Katja Pinker; Gary A Ulaner; Leonard T Ong; Pascal Baltzer; Maxine S Jochelson; Heather L McArthur; Mithat Gönen; Maura Dickler; Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  PERCIST in Perspective.

Authors:  Joo Hyun O; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-12-18

Review 10.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment.

Authors:  David L Raunig; Lisa M McShane; Gene Pennello; Constantine Gatsonis; Paul L Carson; James T Voyvodic; Richard L Wahl; Brenda F Kurland; Adam J Schwarz; Mithat Gönen; Gudrun Zahlmann; Marina V Kondratovich; Kevin O'Donnell; Nicholas Petrick; Patricia E Cole; Brian Garra; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.021

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.