Helle D Zacho1,2, Randi F Fonager3, Julie B Nielsen3, Christian Haarmark4, Helle W Hendel4, Martin B Johansen5, Jesper C Mortensen6, Lars J Petersen3,2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark h.zacho@rn.dk. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark. 5. Unit of Clinical Biostatistics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; and. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Herning, Denmark.
Abstract
Our aim was to evaluate the interobserver agreement in 18F-sodium fluoride (NaF) PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: 18F-NaF PET/CT scans were retrieved from all patients who participated in 4 recent prospective trials. Two experienced observers independently evaluated the 18F-NaF PET/CT scans on a patient level using a 3-category scale (no bone metastases [M0], equivocal for bone metastases, and bone metastases present [M1]) and on a dichotomous scale (M0/M1). In patients with no more than 10 lesions, the location and number of lesions were recorded. On a patient level, the diagnostic performance was calculated using a sensitivity analysis, in which equivocal lesions were handled as M0 as well as M1. Results: 18F-NaF PET/CT scans from 219 patients with PCa were included, of whom 129 patients were scanned for primary staging, 67 for biochemical recurrence, and 23 for metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Agreement between the observers was almost perfect on a patient level (3-category unweighted κ = 0.83 ± 0.05, linear weighted κ = 0.90 ± 0.06, and dichotomous κ = 0.91 ± 0.07). On a lesion level (dichotomous scale), the observers agreed on the number and location of bone metastases in 205 (93.6%) patients. In the remaining 14 patients, the readers disagreed on the number of lesions in 13 patients and the location of bone metastases in 1 patient. A final diagnosis of bone metastases was made for 211 of 219 patients. The sensitivity ranged from 0.86 to 0.92, specificity from 0.83 to 0.97, positive predictive value from 0.70 to 0.93, and negative predictive value from 0.94 to 0.96. Conclusion: The interobserver agreement on 18F-NaF PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in patients with PCa was very high among trained observers, both on a patient level and on a lesion level. Moreover, the diagnostic performance of 18F-NaF PET/CT was satisfactory, rendering 18F-NaF PET/CT a robust tool in the diagnostic armamentarium.
Our aim was to evaluate the interobserver agreement in 18F-sodium fluoride (NaF) PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: 18F-NaF PET/CT scans were retrieved from all patients who participated in 4 recent prospective trials. Two experienced observers independently evaluated the 18F-NaF PET/CT scans on a patient level using a 3-category scale (no bone metastases [M0], equivocal for bone metastases, and bone metastases present [M1]) and on a dichotomous scale (M0/M1). In patients with no more than 10 lesions, the location and number of lesions were recorded. On a patient level, the diagnostic performance was calculated using a sensitivity analysis, in which equivocal lesions were handled as M0 as well as M1. Results: 18F-NaF PET/CT scans from 219 patients with PCa were included, of whom 129 patients were scanned for primary staging, 67 for biochemical recurrence, and 23 for metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Agreement between the observers was almost perfect on a patient level (3-category unweighted κ = 0.83 ± 0.05, linear weighted κ = 0.90 ± 0.06, and dichotomous κ = 0.91 ± 0.07). On a lesion level (dichotomous scale), the observers agreed on the number and location of bone metastases in 205 (93.6%) patients. In the remaining 14 patients, the readers disagreed on the number of lesions in 13 patients and the location of bone metastases in 1 patient. A final diagnosis of bone metastases was made for 211 of 219 patients. The sensitivity ranged from 0.86 to 0.92, specificity from 0.83 to 0.97, positive predictive value from 0.70 to 0.93, and negative predictive value from 0.94 to 0.96. Conclusion: The interobserver agreement on 18F-NaF PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in patients with PCa was very high among trained observers, both on a patient level and on a lesion level. Moreover, the diagnostic performance of 18F-NaF PET/CT was satisfactory, rendering 18F-NaF PET/CT a robust tool in the diagnostic armamentarium.
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Jeremie Calais; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Christina Bluemel; Nina Eberhardt; Louise Emmett; Pawan Gupta; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas A Hope; Shozo Okamoto; Christian Helmut Pfob; Thorsten D Pöppel; Christoph Rischpler; Sarah Schwarzenböck; Vanessa Stebner; Marcus Unterrainer; Helle D Zacho; Tobias Maurer; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Crispin; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nicholas D James; Johann S de Bono; Melissa R Spears; Noel W Clarke; Malcolm D Mason; David P Dearnaley; Alastair W S Ritchie; Claire L Amos; Clare Gilson; Rob J Jones; David Matheson; Robin Millman; Gerhardt Attard; Simon Chowdhury; William R Cross; Silke Gillessen; Christopher C Parker; J Martin Russell; Dominik R Berthold; Chris Brawley; Fawzi Adab; San Aung; Alison J Birtle; Jo Bowen; Susannah Brock; Prabir Chakraborti; Catherine Ferguson; Joanna Gale; Emma Gray; Mohan Hingorani; Peter J Hoskin; Jason F Lester; Zafar I Malik; Fiona McKinna; Neil McPhail; Julian Money-Kyrle; Joe O'Sullivan; Omi Parikh; Andrew Protheroe; Angus Robinson; Narayanan N Srihari; Carys Thomas; John Wagstaff; James Wylie; Anjali Zarkar; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paula Lapa; Margarida Marques; Gracinda Costa; Andrei Iagaru; João Pedroso de Lima Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Christie Lin; Tyler Bradshaw; Timothy Perk; Stephanie Harmon; Jens Eickhoff; Ngoneh Jallow; Peter L Choyke; William L Dahut; Steven Larson; John Laurence Humm; Scott Perlman; Andrea B Apolo; Michael J Morris; Glenn Liu; Robert Jeraj Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mohsen Beheshti; Reza Vali; Peter Waldenberger; Friedrich Fitz; Michael Nader; Wolfgang Loidl; Gabriele Broinger; Franz Stoiber; Ignac Foglman; Werner Langsteger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-05-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christopher C Parker; Nicholas D James; Christopher D Brawley; Noel W Clarke; Alex P Hoyle; Adnan Ali; Alastair W S Ritchie; Gerhardt Attard; Simon Chowdhury; William Cross; David P Dearnaley; Silke Gillessen; Clare Gilson; Robert J Jones; Ruth E Langley; Zafar I Malik; Malcolm D Mason; David Matheson; Robin Millman; J Martin Russell; George N Thalmann; Claire L Amos; Roberto Alonzi; Amit Bahl; Alison Birtle; Omar Din; Hassan Douis; Chinnamani Eswar; Joanna Gale; Melissa R Gannon; Sai Jonnada; Sara Khaksar; Jason F Lester; Joe M O'Sullivan; Omi A Parikh; Ian D Pedley; Delia M Pudney; Denise J Sheehan; Narayanan Nair Srihari; Anna T H Tran; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jeong Won Lee; Yong-Jin Park; Youn Soo Jeon; Ki Hong Kim; Jong Eun Lee; Sung Hoon Hong; Sang Mi Lee; Su Jin Jang Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-11
Authors: Ahmed Ebada Salem; Gabriel C Fine; Matthew F Covington; Bhasker R Koppula; Richard H Wiggins; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Jorianne Boers; Erik F J de Vries; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Geke A P Hospers; Carolina P Schröder Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.075