Joo Hyun O1,2, Heather Jacene3, Brandon Luber4, Hao Wang4, Minh-Huy Huynh4, Jeffrey P Leal1, Richard L Wahl5,6. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and. 5. Division of Nuclear Medicine, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland wahlr@mir.wustl.edu. 6. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the interobserver variability of quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters used in assessments of treatment response across multiple sites and readers. Methods: Paired pre- and posttreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT images of 30 oncologic patients were distributed to 22 readers across 15 U.S. and international sites. One reader was aware of the full medical history (readreference) of the patients, whereas the 21 other readers were unaware. The readers selected the single hottest tumor from each study, and made SUV measurements from this target lesion and the liver. Descriptive statistics, percentage changes in the measurements, and their agreements were obtained. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient for the percentage change in SUVmax (%ΔSUVmax) of the hottest tumor was 0.894 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.813-0.941), and the individual equivalence coefficient was 1.931 (95% CI, 0.568-6.449) when all reads were included (n = 638). When only the measurements that selected the same target tumor as the readreference (n = 486) were included, the intraclass correlation coefficient for the %ΔSUVmax was 0.944 (95% CI, 0.841-0.989), and the individual equivalence coefficient was -0.688 (95% CI, -1.810 to -0.092). The absolute change in SUVmean of liver corrected for lean body mass showed upper and lower limits of agreement (average bias ± 2 SDs) of 0.13 and -0.13 g/mL. Conclusion: The quantitative tumor SUV changes measured across multiple sites and readers show a high correlation. Selection of the same tumor target among readers further increased the degree of correlation.
The aim of this study was to assess the interobserver variability of quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters used in assessments of treatment response across multiple sites and readers. Methods: Paired pre- and posttreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT images of 30 oncologic patients were distributed to 22 readers across 15 U.S. and international sites. One reader was aware of the full medical history (readreference) of the patients, whereas the 21 other readers were unaware. The readers selected the single hottest tumor from each study, and made SUV measurements from this target lesion and the liver. Descriptive statistics, percentage changes in the measurements, and their agreements were obtained. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient for the percentage change in SUVmax (%ΔSUVmax) of the hottest tumor was 0.894 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.813-0.941), and the individual equivalence coefficient was 1.931 (95% CI, 0.568-6.449) when all reads were included (n = 638). When only the measurements that selected the same target tumor as the readreference (n = 486) were included, the intraclass correlation coefficient for the %ΔSUVmax was 0.944 (95% CI, 0.841-0.989), and the individual equivalence coefficient was -0.688 (95% CI, -1.810 to -0.092). The absolute change in SUVmean of liver corrected for lean body mass showed upper and lower limits of agreement (average bias ± 2 SDs) of 0.13 and -0.13 g/mL. Conclusion: The quantitative tumor SUV changes measured across multiple sites and readers show a high correlation. Selection of the same tumor target among readers further increased the degree of correlation.
Authors: Sebastian Keil; Alexandra Barabasch; Timm Dirrichs; Philipp Bruners; Nienke Lynn Hansen; Heribert B Bieling; Tim H Brümmendorf; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Heather A Jacene; 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 Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-10-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrea G Rockall; Norbert Avril; Raymond Lam; Robert Iannone; P David Mozley; Christine Parkinson; Donald Bergstrom; Evis Sala; Shah-Jalal Sarker; Iain A McNeish; James D Brenton Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 12.531
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