The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interrater Agreement and Reliability of PERCIST and Visual Assessment When Using 18F-FDG-PET/CT for Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer
Open accessAbstract
Response evaluation at regular intervals is indicated for treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). FDG-PET/CT has the potential to monitor treatment response accurately. Our purpose was to: (a) compare the interrater agreement and reliability of the semi-quantitative PERCIST criteria to qualitative visual assessment in response evaluation of MBC and (b) investigate the intrarater agreement when comparing visual assessment of each rater to their respective PERCIST assessment. We performed a retrospective study on FDG-PET/CT in women who received treatment for MBC. Three specialists in nuclear medicine categorized response evaluation by qualitative assessment and standardized one-lesion PERCIST assessment. The scans were categorized into complete metabolic response, partial metabolic response, stable metabolic disease, and progressive metabolic disease. 37 patients with 179 scans were included. Visual assessment categorization yielded moderate agreement with an overall proportion of agreement (PoA) between raters of 0.52 (95% CI 0.44–0.66) and a Fleiss kappa estimate of 0.54 (95% CI 0.46–0.62). PERCIST response categorization yielded substantial agreement with an overall PoA of 0.65 (95% CI 0.57–0.73) and a Fleiss kappa estimate of 0.68 (95% CI 0.60–0.75). The difference in PoA between overall estimates for PERCIST and visual assessment was 0.13 (95% CI 0.06–0.21; p = 0.001), that of kappa was 0.14 (95% CI 0.06–0.21; p < 0.001). The overall intrarater PoA was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75–0.84) with substantial agreement by a Fleiss kappa of 0.74 (95% CI 0.69–0.79). Semi-quantitative PERCIST assessment achieved significantly higher level of overall agreement and reliability compared with qualitative assessment among three raters. The achieved high levels of intrarater agreement indicated no obvious conflicting elements between the two methods. PERCIST assessment may, therefore, give more consistent interpretations between raters when using FDG-PET/CT for response evaluation in MBC.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, it has been demonstrated that inter-rater agreement in response assessment with [18F]FDG-PET in non-small cell lung cancer or metastatic breast cancer can be considerably improved through the use of the target lesion SULpeak (PERCIST 1.0 criteria) in comparison with a subjective assessment [194,214,215].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [215]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., & Jemal, A. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21492 · Cited by 84,109
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 · Cited by 51,384
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., et al. (2009) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 · Cited by 29,534
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800204 · Cited by 9,619
From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors
Wahl, R. L., Jacene, H., Kasamon, Y., & Lodge, M. A. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057307 · Cited by 3,777
FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0
Boellaard, R., Delgado-Bolton, R., Oyen, W. J. G., Giammarile, F., Tatsch, K., Eschner, W., Verzijlbergen, F. J., Barrington, S. F., Pike, L. C., Weber, W. A., et al. (2015) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x · Cited by 3,303
Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed
Kottner, J., Audigé, L., Brorson, S., Donner, A. P., Gajewski, B. J., Hróbjartsson, A., Roberts, C., Shoukri, M. M., & Streiner, D. L. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002 · Cited by 2,314
Breast cancer metastasis: markers and models
Weigelt, B., Peterse, J. L., & van't Veer, L. J. (2005) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc1670 · Cited by 2,232
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A role of FDG-PET/CT for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer?
Hildebrandt, M. G., Naghavi‐Behzad, M., & Vogsen, M. (2022) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2022.03.004 · Cited by 55
Self-citationInfluences on PET Quantification and Interpretation
Rogasch, J. M. M., Hofheinz, F., van Heek, L., Voltin, C.-A., Boellaard, R., & Kobe, C. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12020451 · Cited by 57
Vogsen, M., Naghavi-Behzad, M., Harbo, F., Jakobsen, N., Gerke, O., Asmussen, J., Nissen, H. J., Dahlsgaard-Wallenius, S. E., Braad, P., Jensen, J. D., et al. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32727-w · Cited by 18
Self-citationVogsen, M., Bülow, J. L., Ljungstrøm, L., Oltmann, H. R., Alamdari, T. A., Naghavi‐Behzad, M., Braad, P., Gerke, O., & Hildebrandt, M. G. (2021) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics11040723 · Cited by 17
Self-citationClinical Impact of FDG-PET/CT Compared with CE-CT in Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer
Naghavi‐Behzad, M., Oltmann, H. R., Alamdari, T. A., Bülow, J. L., Ljungstrøm, L., Braad, P., Asmussen, J. T., Vogsen, M., Kodahl, A. R., Gerke, O., et al. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13164080 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sørensen, J. S., Vilstrup, M. H., Holm, J., Vogsen, M., Bülow, J. L., Ljungstrøm, L., Braad, P.-E., Gerke, O., & Hildebrandt, M. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- Odense University Hospital (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Sørensen, Jonas S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Diagnostics
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2020-11-24
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1001
- ISSN
- 2075-4418 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7759893
- OpenAlex
- W3109269276
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 1.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Diagnostics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- PERCIST, 18F-FDG PET/CT, metastatic breast cancer, treatment response assessment, interobserver agreement, intraobserver agreement, visual assessment, metabolic response, PET/CT response assessment, Fleiss' kappa, cancer imaging biomarkers
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
