Intraobserver and interobserver agreement for the interpretation of 68Ga–prostate-specific membrane antigen-I&T positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging:

PET Criteria by Cancer Type from Imaging Interpretation to Treatment Response Assessment: Beyond FDG PET Score

Background: in recent years, the role of positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) has emerged as a reliable diagnostic tool in a wide variety of pathological conditions. This review aims to collect and review PET criteria developed for interpretation and treatment response assessment in cases of non-[18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) imaging in oncology. Methods: A wide literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar databases was made to find relevant published articles about non-[18F]FDG PET response criteria. Results: The comprehensive computer literature search revealed 183 articles. On reviewing the titles and abstracts, 149 articles were excluded because the reported data were not within the field of interest. Finally, 34 articles were selected and retrieved in full-text versions. Conclusions: available criteria are a promising tool for the interpretation of non-FDG PET scans, but also to assess the response to therapy and therefore to predict the prognosis. However, oriented clinical trials are needed to clearly evaluate their impact on patient management.

Bayesian penalized likelihood PET reconstruction impact on quantitative metrics in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Evaluate the quantitative, subjective (Deauville score [DS]) and reader agreement differences between standard ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) and Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL) positron emission tomography (PET) reconstruction methods. A retrospective review of 104 F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography (CT) exams among 52 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. An unblinded radiologist moderator reviewed both BPL and OSEM PET/CT exams. Four blinded radiologists then reviewed the annotated cases to provide a visual DS for each annotated lesion. Significant (P < .001) differences in BPL and OSEM PET methods were identified with greater standard uptake value (SUV) maximum and SUV mean for BPL. The DS was altered in 25% of cases when BPL and OSEM were reviewed by the same radiologist. Interobserver DS agreement was higher for OSEM (>1 cm lesion = 0.89 and ≤1 cm lesion = 0.84) compared to BPL (>1 cm lesion = 0.85 and ≤1 cm lesion = 0.81). Among the 4 readers, average intraobserver visual DS agreement between OSEM and BPL was 0.67 for lesions >1cm and 0.4 for lesions ≤1 cm. F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma reconstructed with BPL has higher SUV values, altered DSs and reader agreement when compared to OSEM. This report finds volumetric PET measurements such as metabolic tumor volume to be similar between BPL and OSEM PET reconstructions. Efforts such as adoption of European Association Research Ltd accreditation should be made to harmonize PET data with an aim at balancing the need for harmonization and sensitivity for lesion detection.

68Ga-PSMA PET in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the observer agreement

PURPOSE

The performance of ⁶⁸ Ga-PSMA PET/CT-MR has been evaluated in prostate cancer (PCa), showing significant results. However, even a technically accurate imaging procedure requires a high interobserver agreement in its interpretation to implement in patients' management. This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the interobserver variability in ⁶⁸ Ga-PSMA PET/CT-MR imaging in PCa patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the interobserver variability, including studies: (1) providing Kappa (K) as the inter-observer agreement test or the essential data to calculate it, (2) providing the K confidence interval or the essential crude data to calculate it, (3) measuring K statistic based on the appropriate use criteria for the inter-observer agreement.

RESULTS

Twelve studies, providing 1585 ⁶⁸ Ga-PSMA PET/CT-MR studies reviewed by 62 independent readers, were included. In general, the pooled inter-observer agreement was interpreted as substantial for all analyzed groups, including tumoral lesions in the prostate bed, lymphadenopathies, bone metastasis, and soft-tissue metastasis (all between 0.6 and 0.8). The regional lymphadenopathy group (0.74) obtained the highest agreement, while the lowest was for soft tissue metastasis (0.65).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a substantial interobserver agreement in the overall interpretation and detecting locoregional and distant involvement with ⁶⁸ Ga-PSMA PET/CT-MR in PCa patients.

68Ga-PSMA-I&T-PET/CT interobserver and intraobserver agreement for prostate cancer: a lesion based and subregional comparison study among observers with different levels of experience

OBJECTIVE

68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT is a relatively new technique, that is rapidly becoming widespread. We aimed to contribute interobserver-intraobserver agreement of 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT, among low/high-experienced interpreters.

METHODS

68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT of 56 patients with prostate cancer were evaluated blindly by four observers. Visual interpretation of malignant disease and SUVmax for lymph node (LN) regions, local tumor, bones and visceral organs were recorded. Cohen's Kappa and Fleiss' Kappa analyses were used to measure agreement between low/high/all-experienced observers. Variations were compared for regions, and the effect of prostate-specific antigen or Gleason score on the results was investigated.

RESULTS

Interobserver agreement was almost perfect for all LN regions (LN1 low-experienced κ: 0.84/0.84, high-experienced 0.89/0.96; LN2 low-experienced κ: 0.88/0.79, high-experienced 0.95/0.95; LN3 low-experienced κ: 0.84/0.89, high-experienced 0.87/0.94, first/second readings, respectively) and bone lesions (low-experienced κ: 0.88/0.88, high-experienced 0.92/0.92, first/second readings, respectively). For local tumor, interobserver agreement was substantially-almost perfect among a high-experienced group (κ: 0.74/0.89, first/second readings, respectively), and was moderate-substantial among a low-experienced group (κ: 0.62/0.56, first/second readings, respectively). Intraobserver agreement was almost perfect for three observers for all regions and substantial for the observer with the lowest experience in LN3, local and visceral lesions (κ: 0.74/0.79/0.62, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Interpretation of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) for prostate cancer is acceptably consistent among observers, but some details are noteworthy. The evaluation should be done more algorithmically for local tumors, since all observers showed relatively lower agreement. The agreement increased as prostate-specific antigen and Gleason score increased. The observer with PSMA experience <30 readings showed lower reliability, distinct from the others. This indicates that although a reader may be familiar with other PET agents, a more consistent interpretation of 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT requires training with a small number of identified cases.