Assessment of interobserver reproducibility in quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 50, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1760-1769

  Jacene, Heather A ^a   Leboulleux, Sophie ^b   Baba, Shingo ^c   Chatzifotiadis, Daniel ^a   Goudarzi, Behnaz ^a   Teytelbaum, Oleg ^a   Horton, Karen M ^a   Kamel, Ihab ^a   Macura, Katarzyna J ^a   Tsai, Hua Ling ^d   Kowalski, Jeanne ^d   Wahl, Richard L ^a,d  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

^c KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

18F FDG PET; CT; Reproducibility; SUV; Variability

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; LUNG CARCINOMA; MALE; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 70350707776     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063321     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216.
2. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207-214.
3. Wormanns D, Diederich S, Lentschig MG, Winter F, Heindel W. Spiral CT of pulmonary nodules: interobserver variation in assessment of lesion size. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:710-713. (Pubitemid 30321077)
4. Monsky WL, Raptopoulos W, Keogan MT, et al. Reproducibility of linear tumor measurements using PACS: comparison of caliper method with edge-tracing method. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:519-525.
5. Warr D, McKinney S, Tannock I. Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2:1040-1046. (Pubitemid 14026263)
6. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2574-2582. (Pubitemid 46606340)
7. Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2101-2111. (Pubitemid 23332245)
8. 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 study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3746-3752.
9. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579-586. (Pubitemid 350002966)
10. EisenhauerEA, TherasseP,Bogaerts J, et al.Newresponse evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.
11. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847-850.
12. Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, Hoekstra CJ, Lammertsma AA. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:294-301. (Pubitemid 40562120)
13. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999;213:521-525. (Pubitemid 29510601)
14. Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ, Alpert NM, Choi NC, Babich JW, Fischman AJ. The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? J Nucl Med. 1994;35:1308-1312.
15. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, Hanauske AR, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1771-1777. (Pubitemid 29523568)
16. Torizuka T, Fisher SJ, Wahl RL. Insulin-induced hypoglycemia decreases uptake of 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose into experimental mammary carcinoma. Radiology. 1997;203:169-172. (Pubitemid 27142726)
17. 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med. 2005; 46:424-428.
18. Schoder H, Erdi YE, Chao K, Gonen M, Larson SM, Yeung HW. Clinical implications of different image reconstruction parameters for interpretation of whole-body PET studies in cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:559-566. (Pubitemid 47618585)
19. 18F]fluoro-D-glucose. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4:171-178.
20. Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE, Wahl RL. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology. 1995;196:167-173.
21. Marom EM, Munden RF, Truong MT, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability of standardized uptake value measurements in non-small-cell carcinoma lung cancer. J Thorac Imaging. 2006;21:205-212.
22. 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49:1804-1808.
23. 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with sarcomas: interobserver variability of quantitative parameters in treatment-induced changes in histopathologically responding and nonresponding tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1038-1046.
24. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13-22.
25. Scheffé H. The Analysis of Variance. New York, NY: Wiley; 1959:221-260.
26. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
27. Revel M, Bissery A, Bienvenu M, Aycard L, Lefort C, Frija G. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology. 2004;231:453-458.
28. Schwartz LH, Ginsberg MS, DeCorato D, et al. Evaluation of tumor measurements in oncology: use of film-based and electronic techniques. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2179-2184. (Pubitemid 30324371)
29. Goodman LR, Gulsun M, Washington L, Nagy PG, Piacsek KL. Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. AJR. 2006;186:989-994. (Pubitemid 46100197)
30. Gietema HA, Wang Y, Xu D, et al. Pulmonary nodules detected at lung cancer screening: interobserver variability of semiautomated volume measurements. Radiology. 2006;241:251-257. (Pubitemid 44433358)
31. Fraioli F, Bertoletti L, Napoli A, et al. Volumetric evaluation of therapy response in patients with lung metastases: preliminary results with a computer system (CAD) and comparison with unidimensional measurements. Radiol Med (Torino). 2006;111:365-375.
32. Mukherji SK, Toledano AY, Beldon C, et al. Interobserver reliability of computed tomography-derived primary tumor volume measurement in patients with supraglottic carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;103:2616-2622. (Pubitemid 40800542)
33. Cherry S, Sorenson J, Phelps M, eds. Nuclear counting statistics. In: Physics in Nuclear Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company; 2003: 131-140.
34. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773-1782.
35. Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2651-2657. (Pubitemid 46606307)
36. Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging-do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology. 2004;232:823-829.
37. Rodriguez-Vigil B, Gomez-Leon N, Pinilla I, et al. PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low-dose PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1643-1648. (Pubitemid 47545030)
38. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):122S-150S.