Cited by 53Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications

Comparison of 3 Interpretation Criteria for 68 Ga-PSMA11 PET Based on Inter- and Intrareader Agreement

Open access
Toriihara, Akira, Nobashi, Tomomi, Baratto, Lucia, Duan, Heying, Moradi, Farshad, Park, Sonya, Hatami, Negin, Aparici, Carina Mari +2 more·2020·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

PET using radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is now being more widely adopted as a valuable tool to evaluate patients with prostate cancer (PC). Recently, 3 different criteria for interpretation of PSMA PET were published: the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) criteria, the Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation criteria, and the PSMA Reporting and Data System. We compared these 3 criteria in terms of interreader, intrareader, and intercriteria agreement. Methods: Data from 104 patients prospectively enrolled in research protocols at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The cohort consisted of 2 groups: 47 patients (mean age, 64.2 y old) who underwent Glu-NH-CO-NH-Lys-(Ahx)-[68Ga(HBED-CC)] (68Ga-PSMA11) PET/MRI for initial staging of biopsy-proven intermediate- or high-risk PC, and 57 patients (mean age, 70.5 y old) who underwent 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT because of biochemically recurrent PC. Three nuclear medicine physicians independently evaluated all 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/MRI and PET/CT studies according to the 3 interpretation criteria. Two of them reevaluated all studies 6 mo later in the same manner and masked to the initial reading. The Gwet agreement coefficient was calculated to evaluate interreader, intrareader, and intercriteria agreement based on the following sites: local lesion (primary tumor or prostate bed after radical prostatectomy), lymph node metastases, and other metastases. Results: In the PET/MRI group, interreader, intrareader, and intercriteria agreement ranged from substantial to almost perfect for any site according to all 3 criteria. In the PET/CT group, interreader agreement ranged from substantial to almost perfect except for judgment of distant metastases based on the PSMA Reporting and Data System (Gwet agreement coefficient, 0.57; moderate agreement), in which the most frequent cause of disagreement was lung nodules. Intrareader agreement ranged from substantial to almost perfect for any site according to all 3 criteria. Intercriteria agreement for each site was also substantial to almost perfect. Conclusion: Although the 3 published criteria have good interreader and intrareader reproducibility in evaluating 68Ga-PSMA11 PET, there are some factors causing interreader disagreement. Further work is needed to address this issue.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.119.232504

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar degrees of inter-reader agreement were achieved with different reporting criteria.

    “Similar degrees of inter-reader agreement were achieved with different reporting criteria [224].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [224]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toriihara, A., Nobashi, T., Baratto, L., Duan, H., Moradi, F., Park, S., Hatami, N., Aparici, C. M., Davidzon, G., & Iagaru, A.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2019-09-27
Volume
61
Issue
4
Pages
533-539
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2976800780
Cited by
53
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Keywords
prostate-specific membrane antigen, prostate cancer, interobserver agreement, biochemical recurrence, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, pulmonary nodules, PET/MRI, PET/CT
MeSH terms
Aged, Edetic Acid, Gallium Isotopes, Gallium Radioisotopes, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oligopeptides, Prostatic Neoplasms, Observer Variation, Positron-Emission Tomography, Multimodal Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review