Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Year of publication
- 2018 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (1)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- English (2)
Keywords
- 123I-Ioflupane (1)
- 18F-DCFPyL (1)
- DaTscan (1)
- PET (1)
- PSMA (1)
- PSMA-RADS (1)
- Parkinsonism (1)
- Parkinson’s disease (1)
- Positronen-Emissions-Tomografie (1)
- RADS (1)
Institute
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- 701983 (2)
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:
We aimed to (a) elucidate the concordance of visual assessment of an initial I-ioflupane scan by a human interpreter with comparison to results using a fully automatic semiquantitative method and (b) to assess the accuracy compared to follow-up (f/u) diagnosis established by movement disorder specialists.
METHODS:
An initial I-ioflupane scan was performed in 382 patients with clinically uncertain Parkinsonian syndrome. An experienced reader performed a visual evaluation of all scans independently. The findings of the visual read were compared with semiquantitative evaluation. In addition, available f/u clinical diagnosis (serving as a reference standard) was compared with results of the human read and the software.
RESULTS:
When comparing the semiquantitative method with the visual assessment, discordance could be found in 25 (6.5%) of 382 of the cases for the experienced reader (ĸ = 0.868). The human observer indicated region of interest misalignment as the main reason for discordance. With neurology f/u serving as reference, the results of the reader revealed a slightly higher accuracy rate (87.7%, ĸ = 0.75) compared to semiquantification (86.2%, ĸ = 0.719, P < 0.001, respectively). No significant difference in the diagnostic performance of the visual read versus software-based assessment was found.
CONCLUSIONS:
In comparison with a fully automatic semiquantitative method in I-ioflupane interpretation, human assessment obtained an almost perfect agreement rate. However, compared to clinical established diagnosis serving as a reference, visual read seemed to be slightly more accurate as a solely software-based quantitative assessment.