Rudolf A Werner1, Thorsten Derlin2, Steven P Rowe3, Lena Bundschuh4, Gabriel T Sheikh5, Martin G Pomper3, Sebastian Schulz2, Takahiro Higuchi6,7, Andreas K Buck6, Frank M Bengel2, Ralph A Bundschuh4, Constantin Lapa5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany werner.rudolf@mh-hannover.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 3. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Hospital Bonn, Medical Faculty, Bonn, Germany. 5. Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany; and. 7. Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.
Abstract
Recently, a standardized framework system for interpreting somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-targeted PET/CT, termed the SSTR reporting and data system (RADS) 1.0, was introduced, providing reliable standards and criteria for SSTR-targeted imaging. We determined the interobserver reliability of SSTR-RADS for interpretation of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT scans in a multicentric, randomized setting. Methods: A set of 51 randomized 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT scans was independently assessed by 4 masked readers with different levels of experience (2 experienced readers and 2 inexperienced readers) trained on the SSTR-RADS 1.0 criteria (based on a 5-point scale from 1 [definitively benign] to 5 [high certainty that neuroendocrine neoplasia is present]). For each scan, SSTR-RADS scores were assigned to a maximum of 5 target lesions (TLs). An overall scan impression based on SSTR-RADS was indicated, and interobserver agreement rates on a TL-based, on an organ-based, and on an overall SSTR-RADS score-based level were computed. The readers were also asked to decide whether peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) should be considered on the basis of the assigned RADS scores. Results: Among the selected TLs, 153 were chosen by at least 2 readers (all 4 readers selected the same TLs in 58 of 153 [37.9%] instances). The interobserver agreement for SSTR-RADS scoring among identical TLs was good (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ 0.73 for 4, 3, and 2 identical TLs). For lymph node and liver lesions, excellent interobserver agreement rates were derived (ICC, 0.91 and 0.77, respectively). Moreover, the interobserver agreement for an overall scan impression based on SSTR-RADS was excellent (ICC, 0.88). The SSTR-RADS-based decision to use PRRT also demonstrated excellent agreement, with an ICC of 0.80. No significant differences between experienced and inexperienced readers for an overall scan impression and TL-based SSTR-RADS scoring were observed (P ≥ 0.18), thereby suggesting that SSTR-RADS seems to be readily applicable even for less experienced readers. Conclusion: SSTR-RADS-guided assessment demonstrated a high concordance rate, even among readers with different levels of experience, supporting the adoption of SSTR-RADS for trials, clinical routine, or outcome studies.
Recently, a standardized framework system for interpreting somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-targeted PET/CT, termed the SSTR reporting and data system (RADS) 1.0, was introduced, providing reliable standards and criteria for SSTR-targeted imaging. We determined the interobserver reliability of SSTR-RADS for interpretation of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT scans in a multicentric, randomized setting. Methods: A set of 51 randomized 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT scans was independently assessed by 4 masked readers with different levels of experience (2 experienced readers and 2 inexperienced readers) trained on the SSTR-RADS 1.0 criteria (based on a 5-point scale from 1 [definitively benign] to 5 [high certainty that neuroendocrine neoplasia is present]). For each scan, SSTR-RADS scores were assigned to a maximum of 5 target lesions (TLs). An overall scan impression based on SSTR-RADS was indicated, and interobserver agreement rates on a TL-based, on an organ-based, and on an overall SSTR-RADS score-based level were computed. The readers were also asked to decide whether peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) should be considered on the basis of the assigned RADS scores. Results: Among the selected TLs, 153 were chosen by at least 2 readers (all 4 readers selected the same TLs in 58 of 153 [37.9%] instances). The interobserver agreement for SSTR-RADS scoring among identical TLs was good (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ 0.73 for 4, 3, and 2 identical TLs). For lymph node and liver lesions, excellent interobserver agreement rates were derived (ICC, 0.91 and 0.77, respectively). Moreover, the interobserver agreement for an overall scan impression based on SSTR-RADS was excellent (ICC, 0.88). The SSTR-RADS-based decision to use PRRT also demonstrated excellent agreement, with an ICC of 0.80. No significant differences between experienced and inexperienced readers for an overall scan impression and TL-based SSTR-RADS scoring were observed (P ≥ 0.18), thereby suggesting that SSTR-RADS seems to be readily applicable even for less experienced readers. Conclusion: SSTR-RADS-guided assessment demonstrated a high concordance rate, even among readers with different levels of experience, supporting the adoption of SSTR-RADS for trials, clinical routine, or outcome studies.
Authors: Anna Yordanova; Harriet Ahrens; Georg Feldmann; Peter Brossart; Florian C Gaertner; Christian Fottner; Matthias M Weber; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Mathias Schreckenberger; Matthias Miederer; Markus Essler Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Heribert Hänscheid; Jeffrey P Leal; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Martin A Lodge; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Harun Ilhan; A Todica; S Lindner; G Boening; A Gosewisch; C Wängler; B Wängler; R Schirrmacher; P Bartenstein Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Rudolf A Werner; Lilja B Solnes; Mehrbod S Javadi; Alexander Weich; Michael A Gorin; Kenneth J Pienta; Takahiro Higuchi; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Steven P Rowe; Constantin Lapa Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: L Bodei; J Mueller-Brand; R P Baum; M E Pavel; D Hörsch; M S O'Dorisio; T M O'Dorisio; T M O'Dorisiol; J R Howe; M Cremonesi; D J Kwekkeboom; John J Zaknun Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thorsten Derlin; Rudolf A Werner; Alexander Weich; Takahiro Higuchi; Ralph A Bundschuh; Constantin Lapa; Sebastian E Serfling; Steven P Rowe; Martin G Pomper; Ken Herrmann; Andreas K Buck Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 3.484
Authors: Sebastian E Serfling; Philipp E Hartrampf; Yingjun Zhi; Takahiro Higuchi; Steven P Rowe; Lena Bundschuh; Markus Essler; Andreas K Buck; Ralph Alexander Bundschuh; Rudolf A Werner Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 10.782