Observer variation in interpreting 18F-FDG PET/CT findings for lymphoma staging

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 50, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1594-1597

  Hofman, Michael S ^a,b,c   Smeeton, Nigel C ^a   Rankin, Sheila C ^a,b   Nunan, Tom ^a,b   O'Doherty, Michael J ^a,b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

Author keywords

FDG; Fluorodeoxyglucose; Lymphoma; PET CT; Positron emission tomography; Reporter agreement

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; AGED; ANN ARBOR STAGE; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FOLLICULAR LYMPHOMA; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTESTINE; LYMPHOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; NONHODGKIN LYMPHOMA; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TECHNIQUE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHILD; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LYMPHOMA; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70349647607     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.064121     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Kirby AM, Mikhaeel NG. The role of FDG PET in the management of lymphoma: what is the evidence base? Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:335-354.
2. Robinson PJ. Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:1085-1098.
3. Greene FL, American Joint Committee on Cancer, American Cancer Society. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2002.
4. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37-46.
5. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70:213-220.
6. Dunn G, Everitt B. Clinical Biostatistics: An Introduction to Evidence-Based Medicine. New York, NY: Edward Arnold; 1995.
7. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
8. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall; 1993.
9. Fletcher BD, Glicksman AS, Gieser P. Interobserver variability in the detection of cervical-thoracic Hodgkin's disease by computed tomography. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2153-2159. (Pubitemid 29318848)
10. Zijlstra JM, Comans EF, van Lingen A, et al. FDG PET in lymphoma: the need for standardization of interpretation: an observer variation study. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:798-803.
11. Thompson WD, Walter SD. A reappraisal of the kappa coefficient. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:949-958.
12. 18F-FDG PET scan in patients without lung cancer: variables associated with benign and malignant etiology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1429-1436.
13. Hofman MS, Smeeton NC, Rankin SC, Nunan T, O'Doherty MJ. Observer variation in FDG PET-CT for staging of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:194-199.
14. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571-578. (Pubitemid 350002965)