Lisa A Min1,2, Wouter V Vogel3,4, Max J Lahaye1, Monique Maas1, Maarten L Donswijk3, Erik Vegt3, Miranda Kusters5,6, Henry J Zijlmans7, Katarzyna Jóźwiak8, Sander Roberti8, Regina G H Beets-Tan1,2, Doenja M J Lambregts9. 1. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, POB 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology - University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, POB 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.lambregts@nki.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Abdominal cancer patients increasingly undergo multimodality imaging. This study evaluates effects of integrated reading of PET/CT and abdominal MRI on staging outcomes and diagnostic confidence compared to "routine" separate reading. METHODS: In total, N = 201 patients who underwent abdominal MRI and whole-body F-18 FDG-PET/CT within 14 days were retrospectively analyzed. Original MRI and PET/CT reports were retrieved and reported findings translated into a 5-point confidence score (1 = definitely benign to 5 = definitely malignant) for 7 standardized regions (primary tumor/regional lymph nodes/distant lymph nodes/liver/lung/bone/peritoneum) per patient. Two-reader teams (radiologist + nuclear medicine physician) then performed integrated reading of the images using the same scoring system. RESULTS: Integrated reading led to discrepant findings in 59 of 201 (29%) of patients, with potential clinical impact in 25 of 201 (12%). Equivocal scores decreased from 5.7% (PET/CT) and 5.4% (MRI) to 3.2% (p = 0.05 and p = 0.14). Compared to the original PET/CT reports, integrated reading led to increased diagnostic confidence in 8.9% versus decreased confidence in 6.6% (p = 0.26). Compared with the original MRI reports, an increase in confidence occurred in 9.6% versus a decrease in 6.9% (p = 0.18). The effect on diagnostic confidence was most pronounced in lymph nodes (p = 0.08 vs. MRI), cervical cancer (p = 0.03 vs. MRI), and recurrent disease staging (p = 0.06 vs. PET/CT). CONCLUSIONS:Integrated PET/CT+MRI reading alters staging outcomes in a substantial proportion of cases with potential clinical impact in ± 1 out of 9 patients. It can also have a small positive effect on diagnostic confidence, particularly in lymph nodes and cervical cancer, and in post-treatment settings. These findings support further collaboration between radiology and nuclear medicine disciplines. KEY POINTS: • Increasing numbers of patients undergo multimodality imaging consisting of both MRI and PET/CT for staging of abdominal malignancies. • Integrated reading of FDG-PET/CT and abdominal MR images by a team, consisting of a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician, can alter staging outcomes compared to separate reporting of the exams in a substantial proportion of cases and with potential clinical impact in ± 1 out of 9 patients. • Integrated PET/CT+MRI reading can have a small positive effect on diagnostic confidence.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Abdominal cancerpatients increasingly undergo multimodality imaging. This study evaluates effects of integrated reading of PET/CT and abdominal MRI on staging outcomes and diagnostic confidence compared to "routine" separate reading. METHODS: In total, N = 201 patients who underwent abdominal MRI and whole-body F-18 FDG-PET/CT within 14 days were retrospectively analyzed. Original MRI and PET/CT reports were retrieved and reported findings translated into a 5-point confidence score (1 = definitely benign to 5 = definitely malignant) for 7 standardized regions (primary tumor/regional lymph nodes/distant lymph nodes/liver/lung/bone/peritoneum) per patient. Two-reader teams (radiologist + nuclear medicine physician) then performed integrated reading of the images using the same scoring system. RESULTS: Integrated reading led to discrepant findings in 59 of 201 (29%) of patients, with potential clinical impact in 25 of 201 (12%). Equivocal scores decreased from 5.7% (PET/CT) and 5.4% (MRI) to 3.2% (p = 0.05 and p = 0.14). Compared to the original PET/CT reports, integrated reading led to increased diagnostic confidence in 8.9% versus decreased confidence in 6.6% (p = 0.26). Compared with the original MRI reports, an increase in confidence occurred in 9.6% versus a decrease in 6.9% (p = 0.18). The effect on diagnostic confidence was most pronounced in lymph nodes (p = 0.08 vs. MRI), cervical cancer (p = 0.03 vs. MRI), and recurrent disease staging (p = 0.06 vs. PET/CT). CONCLUSIONS: Integrated PET/CT+MRI reading alters staging outcomes in a substantial proportion of cases with potential clinical impact in ± 1 out of 9 patients. It can also have a small positive effect on diagnostic confidence, particularly in lymph nodes and cervical cancer, and in post-treatment settings. These findings support further collaboration between radiology and nuclear medicine disciplines. KEY POINTS: • Increasing numbers of patients undergo multimodality imaging consisting of both MRI and PET/CT for staging of abdominal malignancies. • Integrated reading of FDG-PET/CT and abdominal MR images by a team, consisting of a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician, can alter staging outcomes compared to separate reporting of the exams in a substantial proportion of cases and with potential clinical impact in ± 1 out of 9 patients. • Integrated PET/CT+MRI reading can have a small positive effect on diagnostic confidence.
Authors: Katrijn Michielsen; Raphaëla Dresen; Ragna Vanslembrouck; Frederik De Keyzer; Frédéric Amant; Elvier Mussen; Karin Leunen; Patrick Berteloot; Philippe Moerman; Ignace Vergote; Vincent Vandecaveye Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Andrei Samarin; Martin Hüllner; Marcelo A Queiroz; Paul Stolzmann; Irene A Burger; Gustav von Schulthess; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Karsten Beiderwellen; Johannes Grueneisen; Verena Ruhlmann; Paul Buderath; Bahriye Aktas; Philipp Heusch; Oliver Kraff; Michael Forsting; Thomas C Lauenstein; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Doenja M J Lambregts; Vincent Vandecaveye; Brunella Barbaro; Frans C H Bakers; Maarten Lambrecht; Monique Maas; Karin Haustermans; Vincenzo Valentini; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Lisa A Min; Francesca Castagnoli; Wouter V Vogel; Jisk P Vellenga; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Regina G H Beets Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 3.629