Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Document Type
- Journal article (1)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- English (2)
Keywords
- reporting and data system (2) (remove)
Institute
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- 701983 (1)
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 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.
Purpose
For somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), a standardized framework termed SSTR-reporting and data system (RADS) has been proposed. We aimed to elucidate the impact of a RADS-focused training on reader’s anxiety to report on SSTR-PET/CT, the motivational beliefs in learning such a system, whether it increases reader’s confidence, and its implementation in clinical routine.
Procedures
A 3-day training course focusing on SSTR-RADS was conducted. Self-report questionnaires were handed out prior to the course (Pre) and thereafter (Post). The impact of the training on the following categories was evaluated: (1) test anxiety to report on SSTR-PET/CT, (2) motivational beliefs, (3) increase in reader’s confidence, and (4) clinical implementation. To assess the effect size of the course, Cohen’s d was calculated (small, d = 0.20; large effect, d = 0.80).
Results
Of 22 participants, Pre and Post were returned by 21/22 (95.5%). In total, 14/21 (66.7%) were considered inexperienced (IR, < 1 year experience in reading SSTR-PET/CTs) and 7/21 (33.3%) as experienced readers (ER, > 1 year). Applying SSTR-RADS, a large decrease in anxiety to report on SSTR-PET/CT was noted for IR (d = − 0.74, P = 0.02), but not for ER (d = 0.11, P = 0.78). For the other three categories motivational beliefs, reader’s confidence, and clinical implementation, agreement rates were already high prior to the training and persisted throughout the course (P ≥ 0.21).
Conclusions
A framework-focused reader training can reduce anxiety to report on SSTR-PET/CTs, in particular for inexperienced readers. This may allow for a more widespread adoption of this system, e.g., in multicenter trials for better intra- and interindividual comparison of scan results.