Rudolf A Werner1,2, Ralph A Bundschuh3, Lena Bundschuh3, Mehrbod S Javadi1, Jeffrey P Leal1, Takahiro Higuchi2,4, Kenneth J Pienta5, Andreas K Buck2, Martin G Pomper1, Michael A Gorin1,5, Constantin Lapa2, Steven P Rowe6,5. 1. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine/Comprehensive Heart Failure Center, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 4. Department of Bio-Medical Imaging, National Cardiovascular and Cerebral Research Center, Suita, Japan; and. 5. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland srowe8@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
Recently, the standardized reporting and data system for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging studies, termed PSMA-RADS version 1.0, was introduced. We aimed to determine the interobserver agreement for applying PSMA-RADS to imaging interpretation of 18F-DCFPyL (2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid) PET examinations in a prospective setting mimicking the typical clinical workflow at a prostate cancer referral center. Methods: Four readers (2 experienced readers (ERs, >3 y of PSMA-targeted PET interpretation experience) and 2 inexperienced readers (IRs, <1 y of experience)), who had all read the initial publication on PSMA-RADS 1.0, assessed 50 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT studies independently. Per scan, a maximum of 5 target lesions was selected by the observers, and a PSMA-RADS score for every target lesion was recorded. No specific preexisting conditions were placed on the selection of the target lesions, although PSMA-RADS 1.0 suggests that readers focus on the most avid or largest lesions. An overall scan impression based on PSMA-RADS was indicated, and interobserver agreement rates on a target lesion-based, on an organ-based, and on an overall PSMA-RADS score-based level were computed. Results: The number of target lesions identified by each observer was as follows: ER 1, 123; ER 2, 134; IR 1, 123; and IR 2, 120. Among those selected target lesions, 125 were chosen by at least 2 individual observers (all 4 readers selected the same target lesion in 58 of 125 [46.4%] instances, 3 readers in 40 of 125 [32%], and 2 observers in 27 of 125 [21.6%]). The interobserver agreement for PSMA-RADS scoring among identical target lesions was good (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] for 4, 3, and 2 identical target lesions, ≥0.60, respectively). For lymph nodes, an excellent interobserver agreement was derived (ICC, 0.79). The interobserver agreement for an overall scan impression based on PSMA-RADS was also excellent (ICC, 0.84), with a significant difference for ER (ICC, 0.97) vs. IR (ICC, 0.74) (P = 0.005). Conclusion: PSMA-RADS demonstrated a high concordance rate in this study, even among readers with different levels of experience. This finding suggests that PSMA-RADS can be effectively used for communication with clinicians and can be implemented in the collection of data for large prospective trials.
Recently, the standardized reporting and data system for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging studies, termed PSMA-RADS version 1.0, was introduced. We aimed to determine the interobserver agreement for applying PSMA-RADS to imaging interpretation of 18F-DCFPyL (2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid) PET examinations in a prospective setting mimicking the typical clinical workflow at a prostate cancer referral center. Methods: Four readers (2 experienced readers (ERs, >3 y of PSMA-targeted PET interpretation experience) and 2 inexperienced readers (IRs, <1 y of experience)), who had all read the initial publication on PSMA-RADS 1.0, assessed 50 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT studies independently. Per scan, a maximum of 5 target lesions was selected by the observers, and a PSMA-RADS score for every target lesion was recorded. No specific preexisting conditions were placed on the selection of the target lesions, although PSMA-RADS 1.0 suggests that readers focus on the most avid or largest lesions. An overall scan impression based on PSMA-RADS was indicated, and interobserver agreement rates on a target lesion-based, on an organ-based, and on an overall PSMA-RADS score-based level were computed. Results: The number of target lesions identified by each observer was as follows: ER 1, 123; ER 2, 134; IR 1, 123; and IR 2, 120. Among those selected target lesions, 125 were chosen by at least 2 individual observers (all 4 readers selected the same target lesion in 58 of 125 [46.4%] instances, 3 readers in 40 of 125 [32%], and 2 observers in 27 of 125 [21.6%]). The interobserver agreement for PSMA-RADS scoring among identical target lesions was good (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] for 4, 3, and 2 identical target lesions, ≥0.60, respectively). For lymph nodes, an excellent interobserver agreement was derived (ICC, 0.79). The interobserver agreement for an overall scan impression based on PSMA-RADS was also excellent (ICC, 0.84), with a significant difference for ER (ICC, 0.97) vs. IR (ICC, 0.74) (P = 0.005). Conclusion:PSMA-RADS demonstrated a high concordance rate in this study, even among readers with different levels of experience. This finding suggests that PSMA-RADS can be effectively used for communication with clinicians and can be implemented in the collection of data for large prospective trials.
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Felix Dietlein; Carsten Kobe; Stephan Neubauer; Matthias Schmidt; Simone Stockter; Thomas Fischer; Klaus Schomäcker; Axel Heidenreich; Boris D Zlatopolskiy; Bernd Neumaier; Alexander Drzezga; Markus Dietlein Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; Leon Will; Claudia Kesch; Martin Freitag; Christophe Kremer; Jonas Merkle; Oliver C Neels; Jens Cardinale; Boris Hadaschik; Markus Hohenfellner; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn; Clemens Kratochwil Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sara Sheikhbahaei; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Matthias Eiber; Lilja B Solnes; Mehrbod S Javadi; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Mohamad E Allaf; Uwe Haberkorn; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Markus Dietlein; Carsten Kobe; Georg Kuhnert; Simone Stockter; Thomas Fischer; Klaus Schomäcker; Matthias Schmidt; Felix Dietlein; Boris D Zlatopolskiy; Philipp Krapf; Raphael Richarz; Stephan Neubauer; Alexander Drzezga; Bernd Neumaier Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Krystyna M Jones; Mehrbod S Javadi; Lilja B Solnes; Ashley E Ross; Mohamad E Allaf; Kenneth J Pienta; Constantin Lapa; Andreas K Buck; Takahiro Higuchi; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; B Hadaschik; J Cardinale; J Radtke; M Vinsensia; W Lehnert; C Kesch; Y Tolstov; S Singer; N Grabe; S Duensing; M Schäfer; O C Neels; W Mier; U Haberkorn; K Kopka; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Curtiland Deville; Channing Paller; Steve Y Cho; Elliot K Fishman; Martin G Pomper; Ashley E Ross; Michael A Gorin Journal: Tomography Date: 2015-12
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Stefano Fanti; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Alexander Weich; Kenneth J Pienta; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Ken Herrmann; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Erin Gomez; Phuoc T Tran; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Esther Mena; Stephanie A Harmon; Maria L Lindenberg; Stephen Adler; Anita T Ton; Joanna H Shih; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Alexander Weich; Malte Kircher; Lilja B Solnes; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Steven P Rowe; Constantin Lapa Journal: Theranostics Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Il Minn; David J Huss; Hye-Hyun Ahn; Tamara M Chinn; Andrew Park; Jon Jones; Mary Brummet; Steven P Rowe; Polina Sysa-Shah; Yong Du; Hyam I Levitsky; Martin G Pomper Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Wajahat Khatri; Hyun Woo Chung; Rudolf A Werner; Jeffrey P Leal; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin A Lodge; Michael A Gorin; Martin G Pomper; Steven P Rowe Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-04-07
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Xin Li; Bruce J Trock; Rudolf A Werner; Sarah Frey; Michael DiGianvittorio; J Keith Bleiler; Diane K Reyes; Rehab Abdallah; Kenneth J Pienta; Michael A Gorin; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Thorsten Derlin; Constantin Lapa; Sara Sheikbahaei; Takahiro Higuchi; Frederik L Giesel; Spencer Behr; Alexander Drzezga; Hiroyuki Kimura; Andreas K Buck; Frank M Bengel; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Theranostics Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 11.556