C Furth1, H Amthauer2, H Hautzel3, I G Steffen2, J Ruf4, J Schiefer4, S Schönberger5, G Henze6, R Grandt3, P Hundsdoerfer6, M Dietlein7, C Kobe7. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical School, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg. Electronic address: christian.furth@med.ovgu.de. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical School, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Charité Campus Virchow, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine (KME) at the Research Center Juelich, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Juelich. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical School, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg. 5. Department of Paediatric Oncology, Haematology and Clinical Immunology, University Children's Hospital, Heinrich-Heine-University, Duesseldorf. 6. Department of Paediatric Oncology/Haematology, Charité Campus Virchow, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and reliability of the new positron emission tomography (PET)-based response criteria for interim positron emission tomography (iPET) in patients with paediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma (pHL). Particular emphasis was put on interobserver variability and on identification of a visual cut-off defining patients with very low risk for relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The iPET scans of 39 pHL patients were evaluated in two independent centres by two PET-experienced specialists in nuclear medicine (blinded read, centre consensus) each. The iPET scans were interpreted using a 5-point scale and were compared with the outcome. Cohen's kappa-test (κ) was used to analyse the interobserver agreement. RESULTS: Concordant ratings were assessed in 19 patients with iPET-negative findings, in 11 patients with iPET-positive findings and in 2 patients with inconclusive ratings. A 'substantial agreement' between attended centres was achieved (κ = 0.748). All patients suffering relapse were concordantly identified, taking mediastinal blood pool structures (MBPS) as visual cut-off between PET-positive and PET-negative findings, respectively. All pHL patients with uptake lower than or equal to MBPS remained in complete remission. CONCLUSION(S): The iPET interpretation assured low interobserver variability. High sensitivity for identification of pHL patients suffering relapse is achieved if [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake above the MBPS value is rated as a PET-positive finding.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and reliability of the new positron emission tomography (PET)-based response criteria for interim positron emission tomography (iPET) in patients with paediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma (pHL). Particular emphasis was put on interobserver variability and on identification of a visual cut-off defining patients with very low risk for relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The iPET scans of 39 pHLpatients were evaluated in two independent centres by two PET-experienced specialists in nuclear medicine (blinded read, centre consensus) each. The iPET scans were interpreted using a 5-point scale and were compared with the outcome. Cohen's kappa-test (κ) was used to analyse the interobserver agreement. RESULTS: Concordant ratings were assessed in 19 patients with iPET-negative findings, in 11 patients with iPET-positive findings and in 2 patients with inconclusive ratings. A 'substantial agreement' between attended centres was achieved (κ = 0.748). All patients suffering relapse were concordantly identified, taking mediastinal blood pool structures (MBPS) as visual cut-off between PET-positive and PET-negative findings, respectively. All pHLpatients with uptake lower than or equal to MBPS remained in complete remission. CONCLUSION(S): The iPET interpretation assured low interobserver variability. High sensitivity for identification of pHLpatients suffering relapse is achieved if [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake above the MBPS value is rated as a PET-positive finding.
Authors: Sally F Barrington; N George Mikhaeel; Lale Kostakoglu; Michel Meignan; Martin Hutchings; Stefan P Müeller; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; Richard I Fisher; Judith Trotman; Otto S Hoekstra; Rodney J Hicks; Michael J O'Doherty; Roland Hustinx; Alberto Biggi; Bruce D Cheson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Johannes Salamon; Simon Veldhoen; Ivayla Apostolova; Peter Bannas; Jin Yamamura; Jochen Herrmann; Reinhard E Friedrich; Gerhard Adam; Victor F Mautner; Thorsten Derlin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Shonit Punwani; Stuart A Taylor; Ziauddin Z Saad; Alan Bainbridge; Ashley Groves; Stephen Daw; Ananth Shankar; Steve Halligan; Paul D Humphries Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Amr Elsayed M Hussien; Christian Furth; Stefan Schönberger; Patrick Hundsdoerfer; Ingo G Steffen; Holger Amthauer; Hans-Wilhelm Müller; Hubertus Hautzel Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 6.639