Assessment of Interobserver Reproducibility in Quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT Measurements of Tumor Response to Therapy
Open Access
- 16 October 2009
- journal article
- Published by Society of Nuclear Medicine in Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Vol. 50 (11), 1760-1769
- https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.063321
Abstract
Our goal was to estimate and compare across different readers the reproducibility of the 18F-FDG PET standardized uptake value (SUV) and CT size measurements, and changes in those measurements, in malignant tumors before and after therapy. Methods: Fifty-two tumors in 25 patients were evaluated on 18F-FDG PET/CT scans. Maximum SUVs (SUVbw max) and CT size measurements were determined for each tumor independently on pre- and posttreatment scans by 8 different readers (4 PET, 4 CT) using routine nonautomated clinical methods. Percentage changes in SUVbw max and CT size between pre- and posttreatment scans were calculated. Interobserver reproducibility of SUVbw max, CT size, and changes in these values were described by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and estimates of variance. Results: The ICC was higher for the pretreatment, posttreatment, and percentage change in SUVbw max than the ICC for the longest CT size and the 2-dimensional CT size (before treatment, 0.93, 0.72, and 0.61, respectively; after treatment, 0.91, 0.85, and 0.45, respectively; and percentage change, 0.94, 0.70, and 0.33, respectively). The variability of SUVbw max was significantly lower than the variability of the longest CT size and the 2-dimensional CT size (mean ± SD before treatment, 6.3% ± 14.2%, 16.2% ± 17.8%, and 27.5% ± 26.7%, respectively, P ≤ 0.001; and after treatment, 18.4% ± 26.8%, 35.1% ± 47.5%, and 50.9% ± 51.4%, respectively, P ≤ 0.02). The variability of percentage change in SUVbw max (16.7% ± 36.2%) was significantly lower than that for percentage change in the longest CT size (156.3% ± 157.3%, P ≤ 0.0001) and the 2-dimensional CT size (178.4% ± 546.5%, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The interobserver reproducibility of SUVbw max for both untreated and treated tumors and percentage change in SUVbw max are substantially higher than measurements of CT size and percentage change in CT size. Measurements of tumor metabolism by PET should be included in trials to assess response to therapy. Although PET reproducibility was high, the variability observed in analyses of identical image sets by 4 readers indicates that automated analytic tools to assess response might be helpful to further enhance reproducibility.This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid TumorsJournal of Nuclear Medicine, 2009
- New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)European Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Treatment Monitoring by 18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Sarcomas: Interobserver Variability of Quantitative Parameters in Treatment-Induced Changes in Histopathologically Responding and Nonresponding TumorsJournal of Nuclear Medicine, 2008
- Early Interim 2-[18F]Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography Is Prognostically Superior to International Prognostic Score in Advanced-Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Report From a Joint Italian-Danish StudyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2007
- Revised Response Criteria for Malignant LymphomaJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2007
- Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability of Standardized Uptake Value Measurements in Non–small-cell Lung CancerJournal of Thoracic Imaging, 2006
- Interobserver reliability of computed tomography‐derived primary tumor volume measurement in patients with supraglottic carcinomaCancer, 2005
- New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid TumorsJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000
- Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendationsEuropean Journal of Cancer, 1999
- Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear modelsBiometrika, 1986