Interrater Agreement and Reliability of PERCIST and Visual Assessment When Using 18F-FDG-PET/CT for Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer.
PERCIST
PET/CT
SULpeak
agreement
breast neoplasm
inter-observer
intra-observer
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Nov 2020
24 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
07
10
2020
revised:
15
11
2020
accepted:
21
11
2020
entrez:
1
12
2020
pubmed:
2
12
2020
medline:
2
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Response evaluation at regular intervals is indicated for treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). FDG-PET/CT has the potential to monitor treatment response accurately. Our purpose was to: (a) compare the interrater agreement and reliability of the semi-quantitative PERCIST criteria to qualitative visual assessment in response evaluation of MBC and (b) investigate the intrarater agreement when comparing visual assessment of each rater to their respective PERCIST assessment. We performed a retrospective study on FDG-PET/CT in women who received treatment for MBC. Three specialists in nuclear medicine categorized response evaluation by qualitative assessment and standardized one-lesion PERCIST assessment. The scans were categorized into complete metabolic response, partial metabolic response, stable metabolic disease, and progressive metabolic disease. 37 patients with 179 scans were included. Visual assessment categorization yielded moderate agreement with an overall proportion of agreement (PoA) between raters of 0.52 (95% CI 0.44-0.66) and a Fleiss kappa estimate of 0.54 (95% CI 0.46-0.62). PERCIST response categorization yielded substantial agreement with an overall PoA of 0.65 (95% CI 0.57-0.73) and a Fleiss kappa estimate of 0.68 (95% CI 0.60-0.75). The difference in PoA between overall estimates for PERCIST and visual assessment was 0.13 (95% CI 0.06-0.21;
Identifiants
pubmed: 33255442
pii: diagnostics10121001
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10121001
pmc: PMC7759893
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Mar;33(3):305-12
pubmed: 22227560
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5):1003-9
pubmed: 23096172
J Nucl Med. 2016 Jul;57(7):1102-4
pubmed: 26985059
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1033-9
pubmed: 16980142
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(Suppl 1):17-31
pubmed: 28623376
Mol Imaging Biol. 2007 Sep-Oct;9(5):318-22
pubmed: 17610119
Nat Rev Cancer. 2005 Aug;5(8):591-602
pubmed: 16056258
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2000 Aug;26(4):363-7
pubmed: 10994804
J Thorac Imaging. 2006 Aug;21(3):205-12
pubmed: 16915065
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Jun;31 Suppl 1:S70-9
pubmed: 15133634
Med Phys. 2011 Oct;38(10):5394-411
pubmed: 21992359
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(9):1428-1437
pubmed: 28462446
Radiology. 2016 Aug;280(2):576-84
pubmed: 26909647
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):96-106
pubmed: 21130355
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):328-54
pubmed: 25452219
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Mol Imaging Biol. 2008 Sep;10(5):294-303
pubmed: 18622649
Acta Radiol. 2010 Sep;51(7):782-8
pubmed: 20707663
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
EJNMMI Res. 2016 Dec;6(1):71
pubmed: 27655428
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jan 15;22(2):277-85
pubmed: 14722036
J Nucl Med. 2017 Sep;58(9):1511-1518
pubmed: 28450566
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(Suppl 1):55-66
pubmed: 28361188
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
pubmed: 10501650
J Nucl Med. 2017 Sep;58(9):1429-1434
pubmed: 28360211
J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S
pubmed: 19403881
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Oct;34(10):1683-92
pubmed: 17661031
Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;29(8):1634-1657
pubmed: 30032243
Diagnostics (Basel). 2019 Aug 27;9(3):
pubmed: 31461923
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593