Comparison of visual criteria for amyloid-PET reading: could criteria merging reduce inter-rater variability?
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Alzheimer Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Amyloid
/ metabolism
Aniline Compounds
/ chemistry
Benzothiazoles
/ chemistry
Brain
Ethylene Glycols
/ chemistry
Fluorine Radioisotopes
/ chemistry
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Middle Aged
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Stilbenes
/ chemistry
Journal
The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR), [and] Section of the Society of...
ISSN: 1827-1936
Titre abrégé: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101213861
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
16
5
2019
medline:
8
9
2021
entrez:
16
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Three different amyloid tracers labeled with 18-flourine have been introduced into clinical use. The leaflets of tracers indicate different visual criteria for PET reporting. In clinical practice, it is not yet ascertained whether these criteria are equivalent in terms of diagnostic accuracy or if anyone is better than another. We aimed to evaluate the inter and intra-rater variability of visual assessment of We analyzed 252 PET/CT scans, visually assessed by each reader three times, applying independently the three different reading criteria proposed. Each reader evaluated the regional uptake specifying for each cortical region a numeric value of grading of positivity in order to assign a final score. At the end of each reading a level of confidence was determined by assigning a score from 0 (negative) to 4 (positive). After first reading, those cases in which the evaluations by two experienced readers did not match (discordant cases) were independently reevaluated merging all the three different visual interpretation criteria. Good agreement was observed for visual interpretation among the six readers' confidence-level using independently the three visual reading criteria: ICC=0.83 (0.80-0.86) for All the criteria proposed are useful to determine the grading of positivity or negativity of amyloid deposition and their merging improves the diagnostic confidence and provides a better agreement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Three different amyloid tracers labeled with 18-flourine have been introduced into clinical use. The leaflets of tracers indicate different visual criteria for PET reporting. In clinical practice, it is not yet ascertained whether these criteria are equivalent in terms of diagnostic accuracy or if anyone is better than another. We aimed to evaluate the inter and intra-rater variability of visual assessment of
METHODS
METHODS
We analyzed 252 PET/CT scans, visually assessed by each reader three times, applying independently the three different reading criteria proposed. Each reader evaluated the regional uptake specifying for each cortical region a numeric value of grading of positivity in order to assign a final score. At the end of each reading a level of confidence was determined by assigning a score from 0 (negative) to 4 (positive). After first reading, those cases in which the evaluations by two experienced readers did not match (discordant cases) were independently reevaluated merging all the three different visual interpretation criteria.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Good agreement was observed for visual interpretation among the six readers' confidence-level using independently the three visual reading criteria: ICC=0.83 (0.80-0.86) for
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
All the criteria proposed are useful to determine the grading of positivity or negativity of amyloid deposition and their merging improves the diagnostic confidence and provides a better agreement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31089074
pii: S1824-4785.19.03124-8
doi: 10.23736/S1824-4785.19.03124-8
doi:
Substances chimiques
Amyloid
0
Aniline Compounds
0
Benzothiazoles
0
Ethylene Glycols
0
Fluorine Radioisotopes
0
Stilbenes
0
flutemetamol
0F3M7032P5
florbetapir
6867Q6IKOD
Fluorine-18
GZ5I74KB8G
4-(N-methylamino)-4'-(2-(2-(2-fluoroethoxy)ethoxy)ethoxy)stilbene
TLA7312TOI
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM