• LOGIN
    Login with username and password
Repository logo

BORIS Portal

Bern Open Repository and Information System

  • Publications
  • Theses
  • Research Data
  • Projects
  • Organizations
  • Researchers
  • More
  • Collections
  • Statistics
  • LOGIN
    Login with username and password
Repository logo
Unibern.ch
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. The influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer.

The influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer.

Details
Files
DOI
10.48350/161733
Publisher DOI
10.1007/s00330-021-07870-5
PubMed ID
33856522
Abstract
OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty, patient-based sensitivity and interrater reliability.

METHODS

Four physicians retrospectively evaluated two matched cohorts of patients undergoing [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on a digital (dPET/CT n = 65) or an analogue scanner (aPET/CT n = 65) for recurrent prostate cancer between 11/2018 and 03/2019. The number of equivocal and pathological lesions as well as the frequency of discrepant findings and the interrater reliability for the two scanners were compared.

RESULTS

dPET/CT detected more lesions than aPET/CT (p < 0.001). A higher number of pathological scans were observed for dPET/CT (83% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). The true-positive rate at follow-up was 100% for dPET/CT compared to 84% for aPET/CT (p < 0.001). The proportion of lesions rated as non-pathological as a total of all PSMA-avid lesions detected for dPET/CT was comparable to aPET/CT (61.8% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.99). Neither a higher rate of diagnostically uncertain lesions (11.5% dPET/CT vs. 13.7% aPET/CT, p = 0.95) nor discrepant scans (where one or more readers differed in opinion as to whether the scan is pathological) were observed (18% dPET/CT vs. 17% aPET/CT, p = 0.76). Interrater reliability for pathological lesions was excellent for both scanner types (Cronbach's α = 0.923 dPET/CT; α = 0.948 aPET/CT) and interrater agreement was substantial for dPET/CT (Krippendorf's α = 0.701) and almost perfect in aPET/CT (α = 0.802).

CONCLUSIONS

A higher detection rate for pathological lesions for dPET/CT compared with aPET/CT in multiple readers was observed. This improved sensitivity was coupled with an improved true-positive rate and was not associated with increased diagnostic uncertainty, rate of non-specific lesions, or reduced interrater reliability.

KEY POINTS

• New generation digital scanners detect more cancer lesions in men with prostate cancer. • When using digital scanners, the doctors are able to diagnose prostate cancer lesions with better certainty • When using digital scanners, the doctors do not disagree with each other more than with other scanner types.
Date Issued
2021-10
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health
Subjects
Molecular imaging Nuclear medicine Positron emission tomography Prostate cancer
Language(s)
en
Author(s)
Alberts, Ian Leigh  
Universitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin  
Hünermund, Jan-Niklas  
Universitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin  
Sachpekidis, Christos  
Universitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin  
Mingels, Clemens  orcid-logo
Universitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin  
Fech, Viktor  
Universitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin  
Bohn, Karl Peter  
Universitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin  
Rominger, Axel Oliver  orcid-logo
Universitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin  
Afshar Oromieh, Ali  
Universitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin  
Additional Credits
Universitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin  
Journal
European radiology
Publisher
Springer
ISSN
1432-1084
Access(Rights)
open.access
Show full item
BORIS Portal
Bern Open Repository and Information System
Build: 24f0a9 [ 4.09. 8:55]
Explore
  • Projects
  • Funding
  • Publications
  • Research Data
  • Organizations
  • Researchers
  • Audiovisual Material
  • Software & other digital items
  • Events
More
  • About BORIS Portal
  • BORIS Portal & Open Science
  • Send Feedback
  • Cookie settings
  • Service Policy
Follow us on
  • Mastodon
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
UniBe logo
Repository logo COAR Notify