Gülşah ŞEYDAOĞLU, Gülgün BÜYÜKDERELİ, Mehtap GÜLER

Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability among Measurements of FDG PET/CT Parameters in Pulmonary Tumors

Background: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positronemission tomography computed tomography (PET/CT)provides information about metabolic and morphologicstatus of malignancies. Tumor size and standardized uptakevalue (SUV) measurements are crucial for cancer treatmentmonitoring.Aims: The purpose of our study was to assess the variabilityof these measurements performed by observers evaluatinglung tumors.Study Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study.Methods: FDG PET/CT images of 97 patients with pulmonarytumors were independently evaluated by two experiencednuclear medicine physicians. Primary tumorsize (UDCT), maximum SUV (SUVmax), mean SUV(SUVmean) and maximum SUV normalized to liver meanSUV (SUVnliv max) were measured by each observer attwo different times with an interval of at least 2 weeks. Interobserverand intraobserver variabilities of measurementswere evaluated through statistical methods.Results: Size of the lesions varied from 0.81 to 13.6 cm(mean 4.29±2.24 cm). Very good agreement was shownwith correlation, Bland-Altman and regression analysis forall measured PET/CT parameters. In the interobserver andintraobserver variability analysis, the Pearson correlationcoefficients were greater than 0.96 and 0.98, respectively.Conclusion: Semi-quantitative measurements of pulmonarytumors were highly reproducible when determined byexperienced physicians with clinically available softwarefor routine FDG PET/CT evaluation. Consistency may beimproved if the same observer performs serial measurementsfor any one patient.

PDF

___

1. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss L. Quantitative studies using positron emission tomography (PET) for the diagnosis and therapy planning of oncological patients. Hell J Nucl Med 2006;9:10-21.
2. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, Ferrer L, Bridji B, Campion L, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5366-72. [CrossRef]
3. Marom EM, Munden RF, Truong MT, Gladish GW, Podoloff DA, Mawlawi O, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability of standardized uptake value measurements in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Imaging 2006;21:205-12. [CrossRef]
4. Jackson T, Chung MK, Mercier G, Ozonoff A, Subramaniam RM. FDG PET/CT interobserver agreement in head and neck cancer: FDG and CT measurements of the primary tumor site. Nucl Med Commun 2012;33:305-12. [CrossRef]
5. Huang YE, Chen CF, Huang YJ, Konda SD, Appelbaum DE, Pu Y. Interobserver variability among measurements of the maximum and mean standardized uptake values on (18) F-FDG PET/CT and measurements of tumor size on diagnostic CT in patients with pulmonary tumors. Acta Radiol 2010;51:782-8. [CrossRef]
6. Benz MR, Evilevitch V, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, Phelps ME, Czernin J, et al. 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 tumors. J Nucl Med 2008; 49:1038-46. [CrossRef]
7. Ott K, Fink U, Becker K, Eilber FC, Phelps ME, Czernin J, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;2:4604-10. [CrossRef]
8. Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, Naehrig J, Rutke S, Weber WA, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7445-53. [CrossRef]
9. Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F, Reimold M, Hehr T, Budach W, et al. 18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:463-71. [CrossRef]
10. Hoekstra CJ, Stroobants SG, Smit EF, Vansteenkiste J, van Tinteren H, Postmus PE, et al. Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8362-70. [CrossRef]
11. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, Thödtmann R, Hanauske AR, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1771-7.
12. Scarfone C, Lavely WC, Cmelak AJ, Delbeke D, Martin WH, Billheimer D, et al. Prospective feasibility trial of radiotherapy target definition for head and neck cancer using 3-dimensional PET and CT imaging. J Nucl Med 2004;45:543-52.
13. Weber WA, Wieder H. Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:27-37. [CrossRef]
14. Mettler FA, Guiberteau MJ. F-18-FDG PET/CT neoplasm imaging. In: Mettler FA and Guiberteau MJ, editors. Essentials of Nuclear Medicine Imaging. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders 2012:361-96. [CrossRef]
15. Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, Petegnief Y, Luciani A, Dupuis J, et al. Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1626-32. [CrossRef]
16. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159-74. [CrossRef]
17. 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;50:122S-50S. [CrossRef]
18. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, 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;35:1773-82. [CrossRef]
19. 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;196:167-73. [CrossRef]
20. Monsky WL, Raptopoulos V, Keogan MT, Doty D, Kamel I, Yam CS, et al. Reproducibility of linear tumor measurements using PACS: comparison of caliper method with edge-tracing method. Eur Radiol 2004;14:519-25. [CrossRef]
21. 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;10:710-3. [CrossRef]
22. Revel MP, Bissery A, Bienvenu M, Aycard L, Lefort C, Frija G. Are two- dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology 2004; 231:453-8. [CrossRef]
23. Mukherji SK, Toledano AY, Beldon C, Schmalfuss IM, Cooper JS, Sicks JD, et al. Interobserver reliability of computed tomographyderived primary tumor volume measurement in patients with supraglottic carcinoma. Cancer 2005;103:2616-22. [CrossRef]
24. Krabbe CA, Pruim J, Scholtens AM, Roodenburg JL, Brouwers AH, Phan TT, et al. 18-F-FDG PET in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx: a study on inter- and intraobserver agreement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:21-7. [CrossRef]