Literature DB >> 23096172

Integrated (18)F-FDG PET/CT and perfusion CT of primary colorectal cancer: effect of inter- and intraobserver agreement on metabolic-vascular parameters.

Vicky Goh1, Manu Shastry, Alec Engledow, Robert Kozarski, Jacqui Peck, Raymondo Endozo, Manuel Rodriguez-Justo, Stuart A Taylor, Steve Halligan, Ashley M Groves.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to assess the effect of observers on combined metabolic-vascular parameters in colorectal cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five prospective patients (12 men and 13 women; mean age, 66.9 years) with proven primary colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent integrated (18)F-FDG PET/perfusion CT to assess tumor metabolism (mean and maximum standardized uptake value [SUV(mean) and SUV(max), respectively]) and vascularization (blood flow [BF], blood volume [BV], permeability surface-area product, and standardized perfusion value). Intra- and interobserver agreement for PET, perfusion CT, and combined metabolic-flow parameters were determined by Bland-Altman statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
RESULTS: The mean tumor size was 3.8 ± 1.6 cm; there were five stage IA/B, six stage IIA/B, eight stage IIIA/B, and six stage IV tumors. Intra- and interobserver agreement for individual parameters was fair to good, with mean differences between observers of -0.74 for SUV(max), -0.16 for SUV(mean), 9.72 for BF, 0.15 for BV, -0.76 for permeability surface-area product, and 0.09 for standardized perfusion value. ICCs were 0.44-0.99 and 0.38-0.89 for intra- and interobserver agreement, respectively. Interobserver agreement was variable for combined metabolic-flow parameters but better for metabolic-flow difference than for metabolic-flow ratio: ICCs were 0.69-0.88 for the metabolic-flow difference and 0.44-0.94 for the metabolic-flow ratio.
CONCLUSION: Combined parameters to assess the metabolic-flow relationship are influenced by observer variation. Intra- and interobserver agreement are better for the metabolic-flow differences than for the ratios, suggesting that metabolic-flow differences may be a more robust parameter for clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23096172     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7823

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  5 in total

1.  Use of patient outcome endpoints to identify the best functional CT imaging parameters in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients.

Authors:  Jill Rachel Mains; Frede Donskov; Erik Morre Pedersen; Hans Henrik Torp Madsen; Jesper Thygesen; Kennet Thorup; Finn Rasmussen
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Colorectal cancer: current imaging methods and future perspectives for the diagnosis, staging and therapeutic response evaluation.

Authors:  Maka Kekelidze; Luigia D'Errico; Michele Pansini; Anthony Tyndall; Joachim Hohmann
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Application of PET Tracers in Molecular Imaging for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jorianne Boers; Erik F J de Vries; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Geke A P Hospers; Carolina P Schröder
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Interrater Agreement and Reliability of PERCIST and Visual Assessment When Using 18F-FDG-PET/CT for Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jonas S Sørensen; Mie H Vilstrup; Jorun Holm; Marianne Vogsen; Jakob L Bülow; Lasse Ljungstrøm; Poul-Erik Braad; Oke Gerke; Malene G Hildebrandt
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-24

5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.