Rudolf A. Werner, Ralph A. Bundschuh, Lena Bundschuh, Mehrbod S. Javadi, Jeffrey P. Leal, Takahiro Higuchi, Kenneth J. Pienta, Andreas K. Buck, Martin G. Pomper, Michael A. Gorin, Constantin Lapa, Steven P. Rowe

• Objectives: Recently, the standardized reporting and data system for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted positron emission tomography (PET) imaging studies, termed PSMA-RADS version 1.0, was introduced. We aimed to determine the interobserver agreement for applying PSMA-RADS to imaging interpretation of 18F-DCFPyL PET examinations in a prospective setting mimicking the typical clinical work-flow at a prostate cancer referral center. Methods: Four readers (two experienced readers (ER, > 3 years of PSMA-targeted PETObjectives: Recently, the standardized reporting and data system for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted positron emission tomography (PET) imaging studies, termed PSMA-RADS version 1.0, was introduced. We aimed to determine the interobserver agreement for applying PSMA-RADS to imaging interpretation of 18F-DCFPyL PET examinations in a prospective setting mimicking the typical clinical work-flow at a prostate cancer referral center. Methods: Four readers (two experienced readers (ER, > 3 years of PSMA-targeted PET interpretation experience) and two inexperienced readers (IR, < 1 year of experience)), who had all read the initial publication on PSMA-RADS 1.0, assessed 50 18F-DCFPyL PET/computed tomography (CT) studies independently. Per scan, a maximum of 5 target lesions were selected by the observers and a PSMA-RADS score for every target lesion was recorded. No specific pre-existing conditions were placed on the selection of the target lesions, although PSMA-RADS 1.0 suggests that readers focus on the most highly avid or largest lesions. An overall scan impression based on PSMA-RADS was indicated and interobserver agreement rates on a target lesion-based, on an organ-based, and on an overall PSMA-RADS score-based level were computed. Results: The number of target lesions identified by each observer were as follows: ER 1, 123; ER 2, 134; IR 1, 123; and IR 2, 120. Among those selected target lesions, 125 were chosen by at least two individual observers (all four readers selected the same target lesion in 58/125 (46.4%) instances, three readers in 40/125 (32%) and two observers in 27/125 (21.6%) instances). The interobserver agreement for PSMA-RADS scoring among identical target lesions was good (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for four, three and two identical target lesions, ≥0.60, respectively). For lymph nodes, an excellent interobserver agreement was derived (ICC=0.79). The interobserver agreement for an overall scan impression based on PSMA-RADS was also excellent (ICC=0.84), with a significant difference for ER (ICC=0.97) vs. IR (ICC=0.74, P=0.005). Conclusions: PSMA-RADS demonstrates a high concordance rate in this study, even among readers with different levels of experience. This suggests that PSMA-RADS can be effectively used for communication with clinicians and can be implemented in the collection of data for large prospective trials.…