The influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [
Molecular imaging
Nuclear medicine
Positron emission tomography
Prostate cancer
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
21
09
2020
accepted:
11
03
2021
revised:
03
02
2021
pubmed:
16
4
2021
medline:
23
9
2021
entrez:
15
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate the impact of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty, patient-based sensitivity and interrater reliability. Four physicians retrospectively evaluated two matched cohorts of patients undergoing [ dPET/CT detected more lesions than aPET/CT (p < 0.001). A higher number of pathological scans were observed for dPET/CT (83% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). The true-positive rate at follow-up was 100% for dPET/CT compared to 84% for aPET/CT (p < 0.001). The proportion of lesions rated as non-pathological as a total of all PSMA-avid lesions detected for dPET/CT was comparable to aPET/CT (61.8% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.99). Neither a higher rate of diagnostically uncertain lesions (11.5% dPET/CT vs. 13.7% aPET/CT, p = 0.95) nor discrepant scans (where one or more readers differed in opinion as to whether the scan is pathological) were observed (18% dPET/CT vs. 17% aPET/CT, p = 0.76). Interrater reliability for pathological lesions was excellent for both scanner types (Cronbach's α = 0.923 dPET/CT; α = 0.948 aPET/CT) and interrater agreement was substantial for dPET/CT (Krippendorf's α = 0.701) and almost perfect in aPET/CT (α = 0.802). A higher detection rate for pathological lesions for dPET/CT compared with aPET/CT in multiple readers was observed. This improved sensitivity was coupled with an improved true-positive rate and was not associated with increased diagnostic uncertainty, rate of non-specific lesions, or reduced interrater reliability. • New generation digital scanners detect more cancer lesions in men with prostate cancer. • When using digital scanners, the doctors are able to diagnose prostate cancer lesions with better certainty • When using digital scanners, the doctors do not disagree with each other more than with other scanner types.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33856522
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07870-5
pii: 10.1007/s00330-021-07870-5
pmc: PMC8452558
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gallium Radioisotopes
0
Edetic Acid
9G34HU7RV0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8030-8039Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Nucl Med. 2017 Oct;58(10):1617-1623
pubmed: 28408531
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jun;46(6):1383-1390
pubmed: 30631910
J Nucl Med. 2018 Sep;59(9):1406-1411
pubmed: 29371407
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):197-209
pubmed: 25411132
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Nov;44(12):2117-2136
pubmed: 28765998
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul;46(8):1753
pubmed: 31062063
Clin Nucl Med. 2019 Jan;44(1):e46-e48
pubmed: 30371591
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799
pubmed: 28137831
J Nucl Med. 2020 Jan;61(1):51-57
pubmed: 31253741
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018 Jun;62(3):377-378
pubmed: 29873939
J Nucl Med. 2015 Sep;56(9):1378-85
pubmed: 26159588
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Mar;47(3):642-651
pubmed: 31865408
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Mar;47(3):614-623
pubmed: 31792572
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(9):1607-1608
pubmed: 28488027
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul;46(8):1745-1750
pubmed: 30617960
J Nucl Med. 2019 Apr;60(4):511-516
pubmed: 30190303
J Nucl Med. 2018 Dec;59(12):1857-1864
pubmed: 30190304
J Nucl Med. 2020 Oct;61(10):1448-1454
pubmed: 32060217
Eur Radiol. 2019 Mar;29(3):1221-1230
pubmed: 30132104
Clin Nucl Med. 2018 Jun;43(6):e186-e188
pubmed: 29659383
J Nucl Med. 2020 Apr;61(4):533-539
pubmed: 31562226
Nuklearmedizin. 2020 Feb;59(1):33-34
pubmed: 31766065
Clin Nucl Med. 2020 Jan;45(1):e32-e35
pubmed: 31348089
EJNMMI Res. 2019 Dec 10;9(1):106
pubmed: 31823097
Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2008 Aug;29(4):232-5
pubmed: 18795489
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 9;8(1):4254
pubmed: 29523813
J Nucl Med. 2020 May;61(5):764-771
pubmed: 31628214
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Mar;47(3):624-631
pubmed: 31673789
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jun;46(6):1222-1225
pubmed: 30859431
Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2014 Jun 30;7(7):779-96
pubmed: 24983957
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jul;45(7):1179-1187
pubmed: 29497802
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2017 Dec;61(6):732-738
pubmed: 28623872
J Nucl Med. 2018 Feb;59(2):230-237
pubmed: 29123013
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Aug;43(9):1611-20
pubmed: 27260521
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul;46(8):1751-1752
pubmed: 30868228
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(8):1258-1268
pubmed: 28497198
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Eur Urol. 2018 Apr;73(4):485-487
pubmed: 29132714
J Nucl Med. 2019 Jul;60(7):1031-1036
pubmed: 30630944
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jun 1;5(6):856-863
pubmed: 30920593
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Apr;40(4):486-95
pubmed: 23179945
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):210-4
pubmed: 25248644