Elizabeth A Sokol1, Roger Engelmann2, Wenjun Kang3, Navin Pinto4, Adam Starkey2, Hollie Lai5, Helen Nadel6, Barry L Shulkin7, Yonglin Pu2, Daniel Appelbaum2, Gregory A Yanik8, Susan L Cohn1, Samuel G Armato2, Samuel Volchenboum1,3. 1. Department of Pediatrics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Department of Radiology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Center for Research Informatics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 5. Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Orange County, Orange, California. 6. Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 7. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee. 8. Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiolabeled metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is sensitive and specific for detecting neuroblastoma. The extent of MIBG-avid disease is assessed using Curie scores. Although Curie scoring is prognostic in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma, there is no standardized method to assess the response of specific sites of disease over time. The goal of this study was to develop approaches for Curie scoring to facilitate the calculation of scores and comparison of specific sites on serial scans. PROCEDURE: We designed three semiautomated methods for determining Curie scores, each with increasing degrees of computer assistance. Method A was based on visual assessment and tallying of MIBG-avid lesions. For method B, scores were tabulated from a schematic that associated anatomic regions to MIBG-positive lesions. For method C, an anatomic mesh was used to mark MIBG-positive lesions with automatic assignment and tallying of scores. Five imaging physicians experienced in MIBG interpretation scored 38 scans using each method, and the feasibility and utility of the methods were assessed using surveys. RESULTS: There was good reliability between methods and observers. The user-interface methods required 57 to 110 seconds longer than the visual method. Imaging physicians indicated that it was useful that methods B and C enabled tracking of lesions. Imaging physicians preferred method B to method C because of its efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the feasibility of semiautomated approaches for Curie score calculation. Although more time was needed for strategies B and C, the ability to track and document individual MIBG-positive lesions over time is a strength of these methods.
BACKGROUND:Radiolabeled metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is sensitive and specific for detecting neuroblastoma. The extent of MIBG-avid disease is assessed using Curie scores. Although Curie scoring is prognostic in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma, there is no standardized method to assess the response of specific sites of disease over time. The goal of this study was to develop approaches for Curie scoring to facilitate the calculation of scores and comparison of specific sites on serial scans. PROCEDURE: We designed three semiautomated methods for determining Curie scores, each with increasing degrees of computer assistance. Method A was based on visual assessment and tallying of MIBG-avid lesions. For method B, scores were tabulated from a schematic that associated anatomic regions to MIBG-positive lesions. For method C, an anatomic mesh was used to mark MIBG-positive lesions with automatic assignment and tallying of scores. Five imaging physicians experienced in MIBG interpretation scored 38 scans using each method, and the feasibility and utility of the methods were assessed using surveys. RESULTS: There was good reliability between methods and observers. The user-interface methods required 57 to 110 seconds longer than the visual method. Imaging physicians indicated that it was useful that methods B and C enabled tracking of lesions. Imaging physicians preferred method B to method C because of its efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the feasibility of semiautomated approaches for Curie score calculation. Although more time was needed for strategies B and C, the ability to track and document individual MIBG-positive lesions over time is a strength of these methods.
Authors: Julie R Park; Rochelle Bagatell; Susan L Cohn; Andrew D Pearson; Judith G Villablanca; Frank Berthold; Susan Burchill; Ariane Boubaker; Kieran McHugh; Jed G Nuchtern; Wendy B London; Nita L Seibel; O Wolf Lindwasser; John M Maris; Penelope Brock; Gudrun Schleiermacher; Ruth Ladenstein; Katherine K Matthay; Dominique Valteau-Couanet Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S A Grupp; J W Stern; N Bunin; C Nancarrow; A A Ross; M Mogul; R Adams; H E Grier; J B Gorlin; R Shamberger; K Marcus; D Neuberg; H J Weinstein; L Diller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julie R Park; Rochelle Bagatell; Wendy B London; John M Maris; Susan L Cohn; Katherine K Mattay; Katherine M Mattay; Michael Hogarty Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: K K Matthay; B Shulkin; R Ladenstein; J Michon; F Giammarile; V Lewington; A D J Pearson; S L Cohn Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Boris Decarolis; Christina Schneider; Barbara Hero; Thorsten Simon; Ruth Volland; Frederik Roels; Markus Dietlein; Frank Berthold; Matthias Schmidt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Navin R Pinto; Mark A Applebaum; Samuel L Volchenboum; Katherine K Matthay; Wendy B London; Peter F Ambros; Akira Nakagawara; Frank Berthold; Gudrun Schleiermacher; Julie R Park; Dominique Valteau-Couanet; Andrew D J Pearson; Susan L Cohn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katherine K Matthay; Veronique Edeline; Jean Lumbroso; Marie Laure Tanguy; Bernard Asselain; Jean Michel Zucker; Dominique Valteau-Couanet; Olivier Hartmann; Jean Michon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gregory A Yanik; Marguerite T Parisi; Arlene Naranjo; Helen Nadel; Michael J Gelfand; Julie R Park; Ruth L Ladenstein; Ulrike Poetschger; Ariane Boubaker; Dominique Valteau-Couanet; Bieke Lambert; Maria-Rita Castellani; Zvi Bar-Sever; Aurore Oudoux; Anna Kaminska; Susan G Kreissman; Barry L Shulkin; Katherine K Matthay Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anoop Mayampurath; Siddhi Ramesh; Diana Michael; Liu Liu; Nicholas Feinberg; Meaghan Granger; Arlene Naranjo; Susan L Cohn; Samuel L Volchenboum; Mark A Applebaum Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-12