Zachary Patel1, Jennifer A Schroeder2, Paul M Bunch3, Joni K Evans4, Cole R Steber1, Adam G Johnson1, Joshua C Farris1, Ryan T Hughes1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 3. Department of Radiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Abstract
Importance: Assessment of response after radiotherapy (RT) using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) is routine in managing head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Freeform reporting may contribute to a clinician's misunderstanding of the nuclear medicine (NM) physician's image interpretation, with important clinical implications. Objective: To assess clinician-perceived freeform report meaning and discordance with NM interpretation using the modified Deauville score (MDS). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study that was conducted at an academic referral center and National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and included patients with HNSCC treated with RT between January 2014 and December 2019 with a posttreatment PET/CT and 1 year or longer of follow-up, 4 masked clinicians independently reviewed freeform PET/CT reports and assigned perceived MDS responses. Interrater reliability was determined. Clinician consensus-perceived MDS was then compared with the criterion standard NM MDS response derived from image review. Data analysis was conducted between December 2021 and February 2022. Exposures: Patients were treated with RT in either the definitive or adjuvant setting, with or without concurrent chemotherapy. They then underwent posttreatment PET/CT response assessment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician-perceived (based on the freeform PET/CT report) and NM-defined response categories were assigned according to MDS. Clinical outcomes included locoregional control, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results: A total of 171 patients were included (45 women [26.3%]; median [IQR] age, 61 [54-65] years), with 149 (87%) with stage III to IV disease. Of these patients, 52 (30%) received postoperative RT and 153 (89%) received concurrent chemotherapy. Interrater reliability was moderate (κ = 0.68) among oncology clinicians and minimal (κ = 0.36) between clinician consensus and NM. Exact agreement between clinician consensus and the NM was 64%. The NM-rated MDS was significantly associated with locoregional control, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that considerable variation in perceived meaning exists among oncology clinicians reading freeform HNSCC post-RT PET/CT reports, with only minimal agreement between MDS derived from clinician perception and NM image interpretation. The NM use of a standardized reporting system, such as MDS, may improve clinician-NM communication and increase the value of HNSCC post-RT PET/CT reports.
Importance: Assessment of response after radiotherapy (RT) using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) is routine in managing head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Freeform reporting may contribute to a clinician's misunderstanding of the nuclear medicine (NM) physician's image interpretation, with important clinical implications. Objective: To assess clinician-perceived freeform report meaning and discordance with NM interpretation using the modified Deauville score (MDS). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study that was conducted at an academic referral center and National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and included patients with HNSCC treated with RT between January 2014 and December 2019 with a posttreatment PET/CT and 1 year or longer of follow-up, 4 masked clinicians independently reviewed freeform PET/CT reports and assigned perceived MDS responses. Interrater reliability was determined. Clinician consensus-perceived MDS was then compared with the criterion standard NM MDS response derived from image review. Data analysis was conducted between December 2021 and February 2022. Exposures: Patients were treated with RT in either the definitive or adjuvant setting, with or without concurrent chemotherapy. They then underwent posttreatment PET/CT response assessment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician-perceived (based on the freeform PET/CT report) and NM-defined response categories were assigned according to MDS. Clinical outcomes included locoregional control, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results: A total of 171 patients were included (45 women [26.3%]; median [IQR] age, 61 [54-65] years), with 149 (87%) with stage III to IV disease. Of these patients, 52 (30%) received postoperative RT and 153 (89%) received concurrent chemotherapy. Interrater reliability was moderate (κ = 0.68) among oncology clinicians and minimal (κ = 0.36) between clinician consensus and NM. Exact agreement between clinician consensus and the NM was 64%. The NM-rated MDS was significantly associated with locoregional control, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that considerable variation in perceived meaning exists among oncology clinicians reading freeform HNSCC post-RT PET/CT reports, with only minimal agreement between MDS derived from clinician perception and NM image interpretation. The NM use of a standardized reporting system, such as MDS, may improve clinician-NM communication and increase the value of HNSCC post-RT PET/CT reports.
Authors: Ramin Khorasani; David W Bates; Susan Teeger; Jeffrey M Rothschild; Douglas F Adams; Steven E Seltzer Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Johanna Sjövall; Ulrika Bitzén; Elisabeth Kjellén; Per Nilsson; Peter Wahlberg; Eva Brun Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-10-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ashley H Aiken; Tanya J Rath; Yoshimi Anzai; Barton F Branstetter; Jenny K Hoang; Richard H Wiggins; Amy F Juliano; Christine Glastonbury; C Douglas Phillips; Richard Brown; Patricia A Hudgins Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Andrea Gallamini; Martin Hutchings; Luigi Rigacci; Lena Specht; Francesco Merli; Mads Hansen; Caterina Patti; Annika Loft; Francesco Di Raimondo; Francesco D'Amore; Alberto Biggi; Umberto Vitolo; Caterina Stelitano; Rosario Sancetta; Livio Trentin; Stefano Luminari; Emilio Iannitto; Simonetta Viviani; Ivana Pierri; Alessandro Levis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hisham Mehanna; Wai-Lup Wong; Christopher C McConkey; Joy K Rahman; Max Robinson; Andrew G J Hartley; Christopher Nutting; Ned Powell; Hoda Al-Booz; Martin Robinson; Elizabeth Junor; Mohammed Rizwanullah; Sandra V von Zeidler; Hulya Wieshmann; Claire Hulme; Alison F Smith; Peter Hall; Janet Dunn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shanmugappiriya Sivarajah; Andre Isaac; Tim Cooper; Han Zhang; Lakshmi Puttagunta; Jonathan Abele; Vincent Biron; Jeffery Harris; Hadi Seikaly; Daniel A O' Connell Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Ryan T Hughes; Mercedes Porosnicu; Beverly J Levine; Thomas W Lycan; Rachel F Shenker; Bart A Frizzell; Kathryn M Greven Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 1.667