The influence of colour scale in lesion detection and patient-based sensitivity in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET/CT.
Journal
Nuclear medicine communications
ISSN: 1473-5628
Titre abrégé: Nucl Med Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8201017
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2021
01 May 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
23
1
2021
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
22
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate the influence of colour scales on the interpretation of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. 50 consecutive patients who underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer were selected for this retrospective study. The scans were randomised, anonymised and read by five different readers first in the visually nonlinear colour scale 'PET-rainbow'. Scans were then rerandomised and read in the visually linear colour scale 'hot-metal new'. For each scan in each colour scale the numbers of pathological, equivocal and benign lesions were noted. Scans where the majority of readers (≥3) reported at least one PET-positive lesion were recorded as 'pathological'. Patient-level sensitivity was obtained by composite standard with 14.8 ± 1.2 months of follow-up. Increased numbers of lesions per patient were reported for all readers in PET-rainbow compared to hot-metal new (37.4 ± 15.2 vs. 33.9 ± 16.4, respectively, P = 0.0005). On a per-patient basis, 43 scans were rated pathological in PET-rainbow, compared to 39 in hot-metal new. Follow-up was available for 30 patients confirming 26 pathological scans with positive follow-up in PET-rainbow, and 23 in hot-metal new. Three pathological scans were missed in hot-metal new. Patient-level sensitivity was higher for PET-rainbow (0.96) compared to hot-metal new (0.85). Inter-reader reliability was higher for hot-metal new (Fleiss κ = 0.76) compared to PET-rainbow (Fleiss κ = 0.60). Use of PET-rainbow was associated with improved lesion detection and sensitivity compared to hot-metal new, although at cost of reduced inter-rater agreement. Consequently, the use of PET-rainbow for clinical routine and future studies involving [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 is recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33481506
doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001364
pii: 00006231-202105000-00005
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gallium Isotopes
0
Gallium Radioisotopes
0
gallium 68 PSMA-11
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
495-502Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
López-Mora DA, Flotats A, Fuentes-Ocampo F, Camacho V, Fernández A, Ruiz A, et al. Comparison of image quality and lesion detection between digital and analog PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019; 46:1383–1390.
Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A, Miller MA, Maniawski PJ, Jordan DW, et al. Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in patients with oncologic diseases: initial experience and comparison with analog PET. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56:1378–1385.
Alberts I, Prenosil G, Sachpekidis C, Weitzel T, Shi K, Rominger A, Afshar-Oromieh A. Digital versus analogue PET in [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer: a matched-pair comparison. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020; 47:614–623.
Rahbar K, Afshar-Oromieh A, Seifert R, Wagner S, Schäfers M, Bögemann M, Weckesser M. Diagnostic performance of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in patients with biochemical recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 45:2055–2061.
Chen Y, Pullambhatla M, Foss CA, Byun Y, Nimmagadda S, Senthamizhchelvan S, et al. 2-(3-{1-Carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid, [18F]DCFPyL, a PSMA-based PET imaging agent for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; 17:7645–7653.
Oh SW, Wurzer A, Teoh EJ, Oh S, Langbein T, Krönke M, et al. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of biodistribution and PET image quality of a novel radiohybrid PSMA, (18)F-rhPSMA-7, in patients with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2020; 61:702–709.
Rauscher I, Kronke M, Konig M, Gafita A, Maurer T, Horn T, et al. Matched-pair comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 and (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT: frequency of pitfalls and detection efficacy in biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2020; 61:51–57.
Afshar-Oromieh A, Sattler LP, Steiger K, Holland-Letz T, da Cunha ML, Mier W, et al. Tracer uptake in mediastinal and paraaortal thoracic lymph nodes as a potential pitfall in image interpretation of PSMA ligand PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 45:1179–1187.
Krohn T, Verburg FA, Pufe T, Neuhuber W, Vogg A, Heinzel A, et al. [(68)Ga]PSMA-HBED uptake mimicking lymph node metastasis in coeliac ganglia: an important pitfall in clinical practice. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42:210–214.
Rauscher I, Maurer T, Fendler WP, Sommer WH, Schwaiger M, Eiber M. (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging. 2016; 16:14.
Rischpler C, Beck TI, Okamoto S, Schlitter AM, Knorr K, Schwaiger M, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC uptake in cervical, celiac, and sacral ganglia as an important pitfall in prostate cancer PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2018; 59:1406–1411.
De Coster L, Sciot R, Everaerts W, Gheysens O, Verscuren R, Deroose CM, et al. Fibrous dysplasia mimicking bone metastasis on 68 GA-PSMA PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; 44:1607–1608.
Yin Y, Werner RA, Higuchi T, Lapa C, Pienta KJ, Pomper MG, et al. Follow-up of lesions with equivocal radiotracer uptake on PSMA-targeted PET in patients with prostate cancer: predictive values of the PSMA-RADS-3A and PSMA-RADS-3B categories. J Nucl Med. 2019; 60:511–516.
Toriihara A, Nobashi T, Baratto L, Duan H, Moradi F, Park S, et al. Comparison of 3 interpretation criteria for (68)Ga-PSMA11 PET based on inter- and intrareader agreement. J Nucl Med. 2020; 61:533–539.
Eiber M, Herrmann K, Calais J, Hadaschik B, Giesel FL, Hartenbach M, et al. Prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE): proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2018; 59:469–478.
Rowe SP, Pienta KJ, Pomper MG, Gorin MA. PSMA-RADS version 1.0: a step towards standardizing the interpretation and reporting of PSMA-targeted PET imaging studies. Eur Urol. 2018; 73:485–487.
Hofman MS, Hicks RJ. How we read oncologic FDG PET/CT. Cancer Imaging. 2016; 16:35.
Beauregard JM, Beaulieu A. How we read FCH-PET/CT for prostate cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2016; 16:41.
Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL, Holland-Letz T, Linhart HG, Eder M, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42:197–209.
Eder M, Neels O, Müller M, Bauder-Wüst U, Remde Y, Schäfer M, et al. Novel preclinical and radiopharmaceutical aspects of [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC: a new PET tracer for imaging of prostate cancer. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2014; 7:779–796.
Haupt F, Dijkstra L, Alberts I, Sachpekidis C, Fech V, Boxler S, et al. 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer-a modified protocol compared with the common protocol. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020; 47:624–631.
The Royal College of Radiologists. Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and guidelines on diagnostic display devices . 3rd ed. London: The Royal College of Radiologists; 2019.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8:135–160.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33:159–174.
Fendler WP, Calais J, Eiber M, Flavell RR, Mishoe A, Feng FY, et al. Assessment of 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019; 5:856–863.
Giesel FL, Hadaschik B, Cardinale J, Radtke J, Vinsensia M, Lehnert W, et al. F-18 labelled PSMA-1007: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and histopathological validation of tumor lesions in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; 44:678–688.
Siennicki J, Kuśmierek J, Kovacevic-Kuśmierek K, Bieńkiewicz M, Chiżyński K, Płachcińska A. The effect of image translation table on diagnostic efficacy of myocardial perfusion SPECT studies. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2010; 13:64–69.
Rauscher I, Krönke M, König M, Gafita A, Maurer T, Horn T, et al. Matched-pair comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT: frequency of pitfalls and detection efficacy in biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2020; 61:51–57.
Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, Hsiao E, Kneebone A, Hruby G, et al. The impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: results of an australian prospective multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2018; 59:82–88.
Gouras P. Colour vision. In: eLS, editor. 2007. doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0000043.
MacAdam DL. Visual sensitivities to color differences in daylight*. J Opt Soc Am. 1942; 32:247–274.
Loreto V, Mukherjee A, Tria F. On the origin of the hierarchy of color names. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109:6819–6824.
Mach E. Über die Wirkung der räumlichen Vertheilung des Lichtreizes auf die Netzhaut. Sitzungsberichte der mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1865; 52:303–322.
Lane EJ, Proto AV, Phillips TW. Mach bands and density perception. Radiology. 1976; 121:9–17.
Keil MS, Cristóbal G, Neumann H. Gradient representation and perception in the early visual system–a novel account of Mach band formation. Vision Res. 2006; 46:2659–2674.
Fendler WP, Calais J, Allen-Auerbach M, Bluemel C, Eberhardt N, Emmett L, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT interobserver agreement for prostate cancer assessments: an international multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2017; 58:1617–1623.
Kranzbühler B, Nagel H, Becker AS, Müller J, Huellner M, Stolzmann P, et al. Clinical performance of 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 45:20–30.
Evans KK, Marom EM, Godoy MC, Palacio D, Sagebiel T, Cuellar SB, et al. Radiologists remember mountains better than radiographs, or do they? J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2016; 3:011005.
Werner RA, Bundschuh RA, Bundschuh L, Javadi MS, Leal JP, Higuchi T, et al. Interobserver agreement for the standardized reporting system PSMA-RADS 1.0 on (18)F-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2018; 59:1857–1864.
Miksch J, Bottke D, Krohn T, Thamm R, Bartkowiak D, Solbach C, et al. Interobserver variability, detection rate, and lesion patterns of 68 Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT in early-stage biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020; 47:2339–2347.