Wolfgang Peter Fendler1,2, Jeremie Calais3,4, Martin Allen-Auerbach3, Christina Bluemel5, Nina Eberhardt6, Louise Emmett7, Pawan Gupta3, Markus Hartenbach8, Thomas A Hope9, Shozo Okamoto10, Christian Helmut Pfob11, Thorsten D Pöppel12, Christoph Rischpler11, Sarah Schwarzenböck13, Vanessa Stebner12, Marcus Unterrainer2, Helle D Zacho14, Tobias Maurer15, Christian Gratzke16, Alexander Crispin17, Johannes Czernin3, Ken Herrmann3,12, Matthias Eiber3,11. 1. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California wfendler@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bichat University Hospital, AP-HP, University of Paris VII, Paris, France. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Julius-Maximilians-University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. 7. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St. Vincent's Public Hospital, Sydney, Australia, and University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 8. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, California. 10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan. 11. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 12. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Duisburg-Essen, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 13. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rostock University Medical Centre, Rostock, Germany. 14. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 15. Department of Urology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 16. Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany; and. 17. Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany.
Abstract
The interobserver agreement for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT study interpretations in patients with prostate cancer is unknown. Methods: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT was performed in 50 patients with prostate cancer for biochemical recurrence (n = 25), primary diagnosis (n = 10), biochemical persistence after primary therapy (n = 5), or staging of known metastatic disease (n = 10). Images were reviewed by 16 observers who used a standardized approach for interpretation of local (T), nodal (N), bone (Mb), or visceral (Mc) involvement. Observers were classified as having a low (<30 prior 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT studies; n = 5), intermediate (30-300 studies; n = 5), or high level of experience (>300 studies; n = 6). Histopathology (n = 25, 50%), post-external-beam radiation therapy prostate-specific antigen response (n = 15, 30%), or follow-up PET/CT (n = 10, 20%) served as a standard of reference. Observer groups were compared by overall agreement (% patients matching the standard of reference) and Fleiss' κ with mean and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Agreement among all observers was substantial for T (κ = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59-0.64) and N (κ = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.76) staging and almost perfect for Mb (κ = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91) staging. Level of experience positively correlated with agreement for T (κ = 0.73/0.66/0.50 for high/intermediate/low experience, respectively), N (κ = 0.80/0.76/0.64, respectively), and Mc staging (κ = 0.61/0.46/0.36, respectively). Interobserver agreement for Mb was almost perfect irrespective of prior experience (κ = 0.87/0.91/0.88, respectively). Observers with low experience, when compared with intermediate and high experience, demonstrated significantly lower median overall agreement (54% vs. 66% and 76%, P = 0.041) and specificity for T staging (73% vs. 88% and 93%, P = 0.032). Conclusion: The interpretation of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for prostate cancer staging is highly consistent among observers with high levels of experience, especially for nodal and bone assessments. Initial training on at least 30 patient cases is recommended to ensure acceptable performance.
The interobserver agreement for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT study interpretations in patients with prostate cancer is unknown. Methods: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT was performed in 50 patients with prostate cancer for biochemical recurrence (n = 25), primary diagnosis (n = 10), biochemical persistence after primary therapy (n = 5), or staging of known metastatic disease (n = 10). Images were reviewed by 16 observers who used a standardized approach for interpretation of local (T), nodal (N), bone (Mb), or visceral (Mc) involvement. Observers were classified as having a low (<30 prior 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT studies; n = 5), intermediate (30-300 studies; n = 5), or high level of experience (>300 studies; n = 6). Histopathology (n = 25, 50%), post-external-beam radiation therapy prostate-specific antigen response (n = 15, 30%), or follow-up PET/CT (n = 10, 20%) served as a standard of reference. Observer groups were compared by overall agreement (% patients matching the standard of reference) and Fleiss' κ with mean and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Agreement among all observers was substantial for T (κ = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59-0.64) and N (κ = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.76) staging and almost perfect for Mb (κ = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91) staging. Level of experience positively correlated with agreement for T (κ = 0.73/0.66/0.50 for high/intermediate/low experience, respectively), N (κ = 0.80/0.76/0.64, respectively), and Mc staging (κ = 0.61/0.46/0.36, respectively). Interobserver agreement for Mb was almost perfect irrespective of prior experience (κ = 0.87/0.91/0.88, respectively). Observers with low experience, when compared with intermediate and high experience, demonstrated significantly lower median overall agreement (54% vs. 66% and 76%, P = 0.041) and specificity for T staging (73% vs. 88% and 93%, P = 0.032). Conclusion: The interpretation of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for prostate cancer staging is highly consistent among observers with high levels of experience, especially for nodal and bone assessments. Initial training on at least 30 patient cases is recommended to ensure acceptable performance.
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Amar U Kishan; Minsong Cao; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Francesco Ceci; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Johannes Czernin; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe; Hiten D Patel; Igor Vidal; Margarita Mana-Ay; Mehrbod S Javadi; Lilja B Solnes; Ashley E Ross; Edward M Schaeffer; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Alan W Partin; Kenneth J Pienta; Zsolt Szabo; Angelo M De Marzo; Martin G Pomper; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Mehrbod S Javadi; Jeffrey P Leal; Takahiro Higuchi; Kenneth J Pienta; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Eva Dyrberg; Helle W Hendel; Tri Hien Viet Huynh; Tobias Wirenfeldt Klausen; Vibeke B Løgager; Claus Madsen; Erik M Pedersen; Maria Pedersen; Henrik S Thomsen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Thorsten Derlin; Steven P Rowe; Lena Bundschuh; Gabriel T Sheikh; Martin G Pomper; Sebastian Schulz; Takahiro Higuchi; Andreas K Buck; Frank M Bengel; Ralph A Bundschuh; Constantin Lapa Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Johannes Czernin; Minsong Cao; Amar U Kishan; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Kiri Sandler; Fang-I Chu; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Isabel Rauscher; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Thorsten Poeppel; Philipp Hetkamp; Francesco Ceci; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lars J Petersen; Julie B Nielsen; Niels C Langkilde; Astrid Petersen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Nandita M De Souza; Katja De Paepe; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Uwe Haberkorn; Helle D Zacho Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Julian Müller; Daniela A Ferraro; Urs J Muehlematter; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Sarah Kedzia; Daniel Eberli; Matthias Guckenberger; Stephanie G C Kroeze; Tullio Sulser; Daniel M Schmid; Aurelius Omlin; Alexander Müller; Thomas Zilli; Hubert John; Helmut Kranzbuehler; Philipp A Kaufmann; Gustav K von Schulthess; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Louise Emmett; Ur Metser; Glenn Bauman; Rodney J Hicks; Andrew Weickhardt; Ian D Davis; Shonit Punwani; Greg Pond; Sue Chua; Bao Ho; Edward Johnston; Frederic Pouliot; Andrew M Scott Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057